mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019856.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28",
    "document_number": "39-1",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page28 of 31\n\nJ.). The Constitution's \"prohibitions on the deprivation of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate [of the Bail Reform Act] has been respected.\" United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Because the consequence of error - the unjust deprivation of liberty from an individual who is presumed innocent - is contrary to our Constitution, \"doubts regarding the propriety of release should be resolved in favor of the defendant.\" Id.\n\nEven where the government is able to prove that an accused is an actual flight risk, pretrial detention generally remains inappropriate. United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"the presumption in favor of bail still applies where the defendant is found to be a risk of flight\") (emphasis added). Where the only question is whether the defendant is a risk of flight, \"the law still favors pre-trial release subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the court determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.\" Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.\n\n26\n\nDOJ-OGR-00019856",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 39-1, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page28 of 31",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "J.). The Constitution's \"prohibitions on the deprivation of liberty without due process and of excessive bail require careful review of pretrial detention orders to ensure that the statutory mandate [of the Bail Reform Act] has been respected.\" United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (Kennedy, J.). Because the consequence of error - the unjust deprivation of liberty from an individual who is presumed innocent - is contrary to our Constitution, \"doubts regarding the propriety of release should be resolved in favor of the defendant.\" Id.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even where the government is able to prove that an accused is an actual flight risk, pretrial detention generally remains inappropriate. United States v. Berrios-Berrios, 791 F.2d 246, 251 (2d Cir. 1986) (\"the presumption in favor of bail still applies where the defendant is found to be a risk of flight\") (emphasis added). Where the only question is whether the defendant is a risk of flight, \"the law still favors pre-trial release subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the court determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required.\" Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019856",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Kennedy, J."
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021",
      "1985",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-58",
      "Document 39-1",
      "3068530",
      "767 F.2d 1403",
      "791 F.2d 246",
      "493 F.3d",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019856"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a legal brief or memorandum, discussing the constitutionality of pretrial detention and the Bail Reform Act. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}