← Back to home

Document 20-cr-60036

AI Analysis

Summary: The court denies the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail, citing the serious charges, strong evidence, and the Defendant's substantial resources and foreign ties as reasons she is a flight risk. The Defendant was indicted for facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors. The court previously denied bail on July 14, 2020, after a thorough consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
Significance: This document is significant because it reveals the court's reasoning for denying bail to the Defendant, deemed a flight risk due to the serious charges and her substantial resources and foreign ties.
Key Topics: Bail denial Flight risk assessment Indictment details
Key People:
  • The Defendant - The individual being charged and denied bail
  • Jeffrey Epstein - The individual whose sexual abuse the Defendant is accused of facilitating
Document Type
Court Filing
Date
Unknown
Pages
2
Folder
IMAGES001, IMAGES007

Full Text

combination of conditions can ensure her appearance. This is so because: the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first motion for release on July 14, 2020, the Court DENIES the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.1 I. Background On June 29, 2020, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a six-count Indictment against the Defendant, charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of multiple minor victims between approximately 1994 and 1997. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 2, 2020, the Indictment was unsealed, and that same day, the Defendant was arrested in New Hampshire. On July 8, 2020, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment, which contained only small ministerial corrections. Dkt. No. 17. On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail. After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The 1 This Opinion & Order will be temporarily sealed in order to allow the parties to propose redactions to sensitive or confidential information. 2 DOJ-OGR-00001211 --- PAGE BREAK --- evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.1 The defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.”); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the “Government.” Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment 1 Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger.

Individual Pages

Page 2 - DOJ-OGR-00001211
combination of conditions can ensure her appearance. This is so because: the charges, which carry a presumption of detention, are serious and carry lengthy terms of imprisonment if convicted; the evidence proffered by the Government, including multiple corroborating and corroborated witnesses, is strong; the Defendant has substantial resources and foreign ties (including citizenship in a country that does not extradite its citizens); and the Defendant, who lived in hiding and apart from the family to whom she now asserts important ties, has not been fully candid about her financial situation. Thus, for substantially the same reasons that the Court denied the Defendant's first motion for release on July 14, 2020, the Court DENIES the Defendant's renewed motion for release on bail.1 I. Background On June 29, 2020, a grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned a six-count Indictment against the Defendant, charging her with facilitating Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of multiple minor victims between approximately 1994 and 1997. See Dkt. No. 1. On July 2, 2020, the Indictment was unsealed, and that same day, the Defendant was arrested in New Hampshire. On July 8, 2020, the Government filed a Superseding Indictment, which contained only small ministerial corrections. Dkt. No. 17. On July 14, 2020, this Court held a hearing regarding the Defendant's request for bail. After a thorough consideration of all of the Defendant's arguments and of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court concluded that no conditions or combination of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's appearance, determining as a result that the Defendant was a flight risk and that detention without bail was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). The 1 This Opinion & Order will be temporarily sealed in order to allow the parties to propose redactions to sensitive or confidential information. 2 DOJ-OGR-00001211
Page 5 - DOJ-OGR-00019908
evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.1 The defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”) is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.”); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the “Government.” Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672. Third, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment 1 Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger.