mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001986.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "97",
    "date": "12/14/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 45\n\n(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government's case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M. 2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense that defendant \"could have not have martialed\" in the 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when the change was within the defendant's control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).\n\nIn addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision. \"[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.\" United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting \"Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision\").\n\nHere, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7 million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the Court's consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.\n\nIt cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of § 3142(f): that it have a \"material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release\n\n8\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001986",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Nathan, J.) (reconsidering bail decision based, in part, on evidence suggesting government's case weaker than alleged at initial hearing and concern about possible outbreak of COVID-19 in BOP facilities); United States v. Lee, No. CR-99-1417 JP, 2000 WL 36739632, at *3 (D.N.M. 2000) (reopening hearing to consider, inter alia, affidavits relating to seriousness of the offense that defendant \"could have not have martialed\" in the 17 days between his indictment and the original hearing). Changed circumstances also have been found to satisfy § 3142(f) even when the change was within the defendant's control. See United States v. Bradshaw, No. 00-40033-04-DES, 2000 WL 1371517 (D. Kan. July 20, 2000) (reopening hearing where defendant decided to seek substance abuse treatment following initial hearing).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In addition, the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its own decision. \"[A] release order may be reconsidered even where the evidence proffered on reconsideration was known to the movant at the time of the original hearing.\" United States v. Rowe, No. 02 CR. 756 LMM, 2003 WL 21196846, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2003); see also United States v. Petrov, No. 15-CR-66-LTS, 2015 WL 11022886, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2015) (noting \"Court's inherent authority for reconsideration of the Court's previous bail decision\").",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, Ms. Maxwell has obtained substantial information and evidence that was not available to her at the time of her initial detention hearing. Ms. Maxwell and her counsel have also received and reviewed the voluminous discovery produced by the government (over 2.7 million pages), which was not available at the initial hearing and which raises serious questions about the strength of the government's case. As a result, Ms. Maxwell can now present for the Court's consideration the additional evidence discussed above in support of her bail application.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It cannot be reasonably disputed that this new evidence meets the other requirement of § 3142(f): that it have a \"material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001986",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nathan, J.",
      "Lee",
      "Bradshaw",
      "Rowe",
      "Petrov",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "BOP",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "D.N.M.",
      "D. Kan.",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "July 20, 2000",
      "May 21, 2003",
      "Mar. 26, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "CR-99-1417 JP",
      "00-40033-04-DES",
      "02 CR. 756 LMM",
      "15-CR-66-LTS",
      "97"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a bail hearing. The text is printed and legible. There are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}