mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001212.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "20-cr-0080",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Defendant did not appeal the Court's determination that detention was required, and she has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.\n\nII. Legal Standard\n\nPretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of \"[e]xcessive bail,\" and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant \"subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that \"no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community,\" may the Court order that the defendant be held without bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).\n\nIf there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises \"that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure\" the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, \"the defendant 'bears a limited burden of production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.'\" United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) (\"[A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption.\") Nonetheless, \"'the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Defendant did not appeal the Court's determination that detention was required, and she has been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center since that time.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "II. Legal Standard",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Pretrial detainees have a right to bail under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the imposition of \"[e]xcessive bail,\" and under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. The Bail Reform Act requires the Court to release a defendant \"subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that [it] determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.\" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Only if, after considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concludes that \"no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community,\" may the Court order that the defendant be held without bail. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If there is probable cause to find that the defendant committed an offense specifically enumerated in § 3142(e)(3), a rebuttable presumption arises \"that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure\" the defendant's appearance or the safety of the community or others. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). In such circumstances, \"the defendant 'bears a limited burden of production . . . to rebut that presumption by coming forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.'\" United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) (\"[A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact in order to rebut the presumption.\") Nonetheless, \"'the government retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by clear and convincing evidence that the",
      "position": "middle"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Metropolitan Detention Center",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cr-0080",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3141",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1)",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)",
      "629 F.3d 311",
      "254 F.3d 433",
      "950 F.2d 85",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001212"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the legal standards for bail and detention. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is likely a page from a larger filing, as indicated by the page number '3' at the bottom."
}