mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001334.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "40-1",
    "date": "04/12/2021",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page17 of 25\ndetermines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person's defense or for another compelling reason.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). The defendant bears the burden of showing that temporary release is necessary. See United States v. Scarborough, 821 F. App'x 598, 600 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Belardo, No. 20 Cr. 126 (LTS), 2020 WL 1689789, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2020). This Court has not resolved whether it reviews a district court's temporary release decision for abuse of discretion or clear error. See United States v. McCloud, 837 F. App'x 852, 853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).\n\nB. Discussion\n\n1. The District Court Did Not Clearly Err By Denying Bail\n\n33. Judge Nathan did not commit clear error in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court. In three detailed, thorough decisions, rendered after hearing lengthy argument and receiving multiple rounds of briefing, Judge Nathan explained that detention was appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, which carry a presumption of detention; the strength of the Government's proffered evidence, which was based on multiple victims and contemporaneous documentary corroboration; and Maxwell's history and characteristics, including her substantial\n\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00001334",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 40-1, 04/12/2021, 3075763, Page17 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "determines such release to be necessary for preparation of the person's defense or for another compelling reason.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i). The defendant bears the burden of showing that temporary release is necessary. See United States v. Scarborough, 821 F. App'x 598, 600 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Belardo, No. 20 Cr. 126 (LTS), 2020 WL 1689789, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2020). This Court has not resolved whether it reviews a district court's temporary release decision for abuse of discretion or clear error. See United States v. McCloud, 837 F. App'x 852, 853 n.3 (2d Cir. 2021).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Discussion",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The District Court Did Not Clearly Err By Denying Bail",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "33. Judge Nathan did not commit clear error in finding, three times, that the Government established by a preponderance of the evidence that Maxwell is a risk of flight and no bail conditions could reasonably assure her appearance in court. In three detailed, thorough decisions, rendered after hearing lengthy argument and receiving multiple rounds of briefing, Judge Nathan explained that detention was appropriate in light of the nature and circumstances of the offense, which carry a presumption of detention; the strength of the Government's proffered evidence, which was based on multiple victims and contemporaneous documentary corroboration; and Maxwell's history and characteristics, including her substantial",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001334",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Nathan",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/12/2021",
      "Apr. 7, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 21-770",
      "Document 40-1",
      "3075763",
      "20 Cr. 126",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001334"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Maxwell, with references to various legal precedents and statutes. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}