Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Ghislaine Maxwell's Application For Bail (Part 2) (5/3/26)

Transcript

Ghislaine Maxwell's Application For Bail (Part 2) (5/3/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:04
  In this episode, we're going to pick up where we
• 0:06
  left off with the Galaine Maxwell bail application. One. The
• 0:11
  conditions created by COVID nineteen pandemic mandate the release of
• 0:16
  Miss Maxwell. Impact of COVID nineteen on the prison population.
• 0:20
  We submit that the conditions created by the COVID nineteen
• 0:24
  pandemic canpel Miss Maxwell's release pursue into appropriate Belle conditions.
• 0:29
  Four months ago, this Court held in United States vs.
• 0:32
  Stevens fifteen Dash CR DASH ninety five AGN twenty twenty
• 0:38
  WL one two nine five to one five five SDNY
• 0:42
  March nineteenth, twenty twenty, that COVID nineteen is an unprecedented
• 0:47
  and extraordinarily dangerous threat that justifies release on bell. In
• 0:52
  that case, the defendant, who had no underlying medical conditions,
• 0:56
  filed an emergency motion for reconsideration of the Court's detention order,
• 1:01
  based in part on the risks brought by COVID nineteen.
• 1:05
  At the time, COVID nineteen had only begun to take
• 1:08
  its devastating toll on New York and there was no
• 1:11
  known outbreak in the prison population. Nevertheless, the Court noted
• 1:15
  that inmates maybe at a heightened risk of contracting COVID
• 1:18
  nineteen should an outbreak develop, and based in part on
• 1:22
  this change circumstance, ordered the defendant released. Since the court
• 1:27
  issued its opinion in Stevens, the COVID nineteen risks to
• 1:30
  inmates have increased dramatically, as there have been significant outbreaks
• 1:35
  of COVID nineteen in correctional facilities. In the last month alone,
• 1:39
  the number of prison inmates known to have COVID nineteen
• 1:42
  has doubled the sixty eight thousand, and the prison death
• 1:45
  tied to COVID nineteen have risen by seventy three percent. Indeed,
• 1:50
  as of July second, twenty twenty, nine of the ten
• 1:53
  largest known clusters of the coronavirus in the United States
• 1:57
  are in federal prisons and county jail. As this Court
• 2:01
  noted last month, the inability of individuals to socially distance
• 2:05
  shared communal spaces and limited access to hygiene products in
• 2:09
  correctional facilities makes community spread all but unavoidable. United States
• 2:14
  versus William's Bathea number eighteen CR seventy eight, AJN twenty
• 2:20
  twenty WL two eighty four eight oh nine eight at
• 2:24
  five sdn Y June second, twenty twenty. The risks are
• 2:29
  further enhanced by the possibility of a second wave of coronavirus.
• 2:34
  In particular, COVID nineteen has begun to spread through the
• 2:37
  Metropolitan Detention Center where Miss Maxwell has been housed since
• 2:41
  the Bureau of Prisons transferred are there on July sixth
• 2:44
  of twenty twenty. According to the NDC statistics, as of
• 2:48
  April third, twenty twenty, two inmates and five staff had
• 2:52
  tested positive. By June thirtieth, twenty twenty, those numbers had
• 2:56
  risen to fourteen and forty one, respectively. The increased spread
• 3:01
  among prisons means that the COVID nineteen risks that were
• 3:04
  present in the Stephens case four months ago are far
• 3:08
  more serious for Miss Maxwell now and mandate her release.
• 3:12
  Impact of COVID nineteen on the ability to prepare the
• 3:15
  defense the Stephens opinion provides yet another independent basis that
• 3:20
  we submit requires Miss Maxwell's release. If she has detained,
• 3:25
  her ability to meet with her attorneys and prepare for
• 3:27
  her defense will be significantly impaired, and she will not
• 3:30
  be able to meaningfully participate in the preparation of her defense.
• 3:35
  In Stevens. The court found that this factor required the
• 3:39
  defendant's release under US Code eighteen, Section three forty two I,
• 3:43
  which provides for temporary release based on a determination that
• 3:47
  such a release is necessary for the preparation of the
• 3:51
  person's defense. Stevens, twenty twenty, w L one, twenty nine,
• 3:55
  five to one, five five at three. The Court noted
• 3:59
  that the spread of COVID nineteen had compelled the GOP
• 4:03
  to suspend all in person visits, including legal visits, except
• 4:07
  as allowed on a case by case basis. That suspension
• 4:11
  persists to this day. In a case such as this,
• 4:14
  which will require assessing evidence relating to events that occurred
• 4:18
  approximately twenty five years ago, including documents and personal recollections,
• 4:23
  numerous in person meetings between Council and Miss Maxwell will
• 4:27
  be critical to the preparation of the defense. The recent
• 4:31
  resurgence of the pandemic calls into question whether these meetings
• 4:35
  will ever be able to happen in advance of her trial.
• 4:39
  As in Stevens, Miss Maxwell and her inability to meet
• 4:42
  with her attorneys while this policy is in effect, constitutes
• 4:46
  a compelling reason requiring her release. Stevens, twenty twenty WL
• 4:51
  one twenty nine, five to one five five at three.
• 4:55
  Even speaking by phone with Miss Maxwell presents daunting challenges
• 4:59
  due to COVID ninete teen related protocols requiring at least
• 5:02
  seventy two hours notice to schedule a call unless it's urgent,
• 5:06
  in which case Council can email a request to the MDC.
• 5:10
  As Council is learned in the past week, however, even
• 5:13
  an urgent call request does not mean the call will
• 5:16
  take place in the time required. At approximately five thirty
• 5:20
  pm on July sixth, twenty twenty, the court ordered us
• 5:23
  to confer with Maxwell about waiving her physical presence at
• 5:27
  the arraignment, initial appearance and bail hearing, and ordered Council
• 5:31
  for both sides to jointly report back by nine pm
• 5:34
  that night with a reposed date and time for these proceedings.
• 5:38
  We promptly emailed the MDC to request an urgent call,
• 5:42
  making specific reference to the court's order, but were not
• 5:45
  connected with Miss Maxwell until nine pm. There will, no
• 5:50
  doubt be other orders of the court with no guarantees
• 5:53
  we will be able to reach our client in time
• 5:56
  if she is detained. In addition, during this past week,
• 6:00
  Miss Maxwell has not been able to physically review documents,
• 6:03
  and has had limited access to writing materials. The prohibition
• 6:07
  on in person visits means we need to retour any
• 6:10
  documents requiring her review, and she has virtually no ability
• 6:14
  to take notes. The age of allegations in this case
• 6:17
  can pound these problems. Under these circumstances, Miss Maxwell cannot
• 6:22
  review documents and other evidence from approximately twenty five years
• 6:26
  ago and meaningfully assist in the preparation of her defense.
• 6:30
  These restrictions are additional compelling reasons justifying her release. Part two.
• 6:37
  The government has not carried its burden under US Code
• 6:41
  eighteen thirty one forty two the grave concerns raised by
• 6:45
  the current COVID nineteen crisis notwithstanding, Miss Maxwell must be
• 6:49
  released because she has met her limited burden of production
• 6:52
  showing that she does not pose a flight risk, and
• 6:55
  the government has entirely failed to demonstrate that no release
• 6:59
  condition or a combination of conditions exist that will reasonably
• 7:03
  assure Miss Maxwell's presence in court. A applicable law as
• 7:08
  the Supreme Court is recognized. In our society, liberty is
• 7:11
  the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial
• 7:15
  is the carefully limited exception. United States vers. Salerno for
• 7:19
  eighty one US seven thirty nine seven fifty five nineteen
• 7:23
  eighty seven. Pre trial detention is appropriate only where no
• 7:27
  condition or a combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
• 7:31
  appearance of the defendant. United States vers. Saphani, four ninety
• 7:36
  three f. Dot three D. Sixty three seventy five, Second Circuit,
• 7:40
  two thousand and seven. Quoting US Code eighteen, section thirty one,
• 7:45
  forty two E, the Bail Reform Act provides that a
• 7:48
  court shall order the pre trial release of the defendant
• 7:52
  US Code eighteen thirty one forty two B, but may
• 7:56
  impose belle conditions if such release will not reasonably assure
• 8:00
  or the appearance of the defendant in court. US Code
• 8:03
  eighteen thirty one forty two. Where conditions are necessary, such
• 8:07
  release shall be subject to the least restrictive set of
• 8:10
  conditions that the court determines will reasonably assure the appearance
• 8:14
  of the person as required. US Code eighteen, section thirty
• 8:18
  one forty two, C. One and B emphasis added. Consequently,
• 8:23
  under this statutory scheme, it is only a limited group
• 8:26
  of offenders who should be denied bail pending trial. Sapani,
• 8:30
  four ninety three F. Dot three d at seventy five.
• 8:34
  The government bears a dual burden in seeking pre trial detention. First,
• 8:39
  the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence
• 8:43
  that the defendant presents an actual risk of flight Sapani
• 8:46
  four ninety three f. Dot three d at seventy five.
• 8:49
  Emphasis added. If the government is able to satisfy this burden,
• 8:54
  it must then demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that
• 8:57
  no condition or a combination of conditions could be imposed
• 9:01
  on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.
• 9:05
  In determining whether there are conditions of release that will
• 9:08
  reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant, the court must
• 9:12
  consider one the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
• 9:16
  two weight of the evidence against the person, three the
• 9:19
  history and characteristics of the person, and four the nature
• 9:24
  and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
• 9:27
  community that would be posed by the person's release. US
• 9:31
  Code eighteen thirty one forty two G. In this case,
• 9:35
  unlike in the Epstein case, the government does not contend
• 9:38
  that miss Maxwell poses any danger to the community, and
• 9:42
  therefore the fourth factor does not apply. The bail reformat
• 9:46
  contains a rebuttable presumption applicable based on certain of the
• 9:50
  crimes charged here, that no conditions will reasonably assure against
• 9:54
  flight see US Code Section thirty one forty two E
• 9:58
  three and e Z. In cases where this presumption applies,
• 10:03
  the defendant bears a limited burden on production, not a
• 10:06
  burden of persuasion to rebut that presumption by coming forward
• 10:10
  with evidence that she does not pose a risk of flight.
• 10:13
  See United States verse English six twenty nine F dot
• 10:17
  three D three eleven three nineteen second Circuit twenty eleven.
• 10:21
  This rebuttal presumption can be readily satisfied. United States versus.
• 10:26
  Conway number four Dash eleven DASH seven zero seven five
• 10:30
  six m A G DMR twenty eleven, w L thirty
• 10:34
  four twenty one three twenty one at two, Northern District, California,
• 10:40
  August three, twenty eleven. And any evidence favorable to a
• 10:44
  defendant that comes within a category listed in thirty one
• 10:48
  forty two G can affect the operation of the presumption.
• 10:52
  United States versus Domingues seven eighty three F dot two
• 10:55
  D seven O two seven oh seven seven Circuit nineteen
• 10:59
  eighty six. See also United States versus. Mattis number twenty
• 11:04
  Dash seventeen DASH thirteen twenty twenty, w L thirty five
• 11:09
  thirty six two seventy seven at four and five Second Circuit,
• 11:13
  June thirtieth, twenty twenty. Although the presumption remains a factor
• 11:17
  to be considered even after the defendant has met her
• 11:20
  burden of production, at all times, the government retains the
• 11:24
  ultimate burden of persuasion by preponderance of the evidence that
• 11:28
  the defendant poses a flight risk that cannot be addressed
• 11:31
  by any bail conditions. English six twenty nine f Dot
• 11:35
  three d at three nineteen Citation and eternal quotation marks omitted.
• 11:41
  See also United States versus Deutsch number eighteen dash CR
• 11:44
  Dash five oh two FB twenty twenty, w L thirty
• 11:48
  five seventy seven three ninety eight at five ed n
• 11:53
  Y July one, twenty twenty. And regardless of the presence
• 11:57
  and the presumption or the nature of the charges alleged,
• 12:00
  nothing in this section thirty one forty two shall be
• 12:03
  construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence. US
• 12:07
  Code eighteen, Section thirty one forty two JAY. See also
• 12:11
  United States versus Kroll zero six dot CR Dot two
• 12:15
  ninety one EF two thousand and six WL thirty five
• 12:19
  forty one seven thirty six at three WDNY, December seventh,
• 12:24
  two thousand and six. Those charged with crimes involving minors
• 12:27
  continue to enjoy the presumption of innocence in setting conditions
• 12:31
  of release. All right, folks, that's going to wrap up
• 12:35
  Part two, and in the next episode we'll pick up
• 12:37
  where we left off with Part three. All of the
• 12:40
  information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 12:44
  the description box.