mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00020002.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "143",
    "document_number": "39-2",
    "date": "04/01/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-58, Document 39-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page143 of 200\n\n1 the United States Code, Section 3142, the court may order\n2 detention only if it finds that no conditions or combination of\n3 conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person\n4 as required and the safety of any other person in the\n5 community.\n6 In making a bail determination the court must consider\n7 the defendant's dangerousness, if that's raised, and the\n8 defendant's risk of flight. A finding of dangerousness, if\n9 that were an issue, must be supported by clear and convincing\n10 evidence. A finding that a defendant is a flight risk must be\n11 supported by a preponderance of the evidence.\n12 In a case such as this one, where the defendant is\n13 accused of certain offenses involving a minor victim, federal\n14 law requires that it shall be presumed that no condition or\n15 combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance\n16 of the person as required. That's citing 18 U.S.C. 3142(a)(3).\n17 The Second Circuit has explained that, in a presumption case such as this, a defendant bears a limited\n18 burden of production, not a burden of persuasion, to rebut the\n19 presumption by coming forward with evidence that she does not\n20 pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.\n21 Furthermore, once a defendant has met her burden of production\n22 relating to these two factors, the presumption favoring\n23 detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to\n24 be considered among those weighed by the district court. But\n25 \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00020002",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-58, Document 39-2, 04/01/2021, 3068530, Page143 of 200",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 the United States Code, Section 3142, the court may order\n2 detention only if it finds that no conditions or combination of\n3 conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person\n4 as required and the safety of any other person in the\n5 community.\n6 In making a bail determination the court must consider\n7 the defendant's dangerousness, if that's raised, and the\n8 defendant's risk of flight. A finding of dangerousness, if\n9 that were an issue, must be supported by clear and convincing\n10 evidence. A finding that a defendant is a flight risk must be\n11 supported by a preponderance of the evidence.\n12 In a case such as this one, where the defendant is\n13 accused of certain offenses involving a minor victim, federal\n14 law requires that it shall be presumed that no condition or\n15 combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance\n16 of the person as required. That's citing 18 U.S.C. 3142(a)(3).\n17 The Second Circuit has explained that, in a presumption case such as this, a defendant bears a limited\n18 burden of production, not a burden of persuasion, to rebut the\n19 presumption by coming forward with evidence that she does not\n20 pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.\n21 Furthermore, once a defendant has met her burden of production\n22 relating to these two factors, the presumption favoring\n23 detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to\n24 be considered among those weighed by the district court. But\n25",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020002",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Second Circuit",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/01/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-58",
      "Document 39-2",
      "3068530",
      "18 U.S.C. 3142(a)(3)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020002"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. The text is printed and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name of the reporting agency and a reference number."
}