DOJ-OGR-00000283.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document6 Filed 07/11/19 Page 10 of 16 To reiterate, the Bail Reform Act requires pretrial release on the “/east restrictive” conditions that will assure both appearance and public safety. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Home confinement monitored by 24-hour private security guards — a lesser restriction than pretrial detention — has proven effective in meeting those goals in many prominent cases prosecuted in our Circuit, including cases against defendants as infamous as Bernie Madoff, Mare Dreier and David Brooks. To be clear, defense counsel are fully confident Mr. Epstein will appear as required without resort to this measure. And we understand and appreciate Your Honor’s opposition to it. See United States v. Zarrab, No. 15-CR-867, 2016 WL 3681423 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2016). Still, Mr. Epstein stands ready and willing to pay for 24-hour armed guards should the Court deem it necessary or appropriate. More precisely, we realize that Your Honor objects to the measure as more akin to custody than release, finding it inequitable for wealthier defendants to “buy their way out” of jail pending trial. Jd. at *2, *9-10, *13 (citation omitted). Nonetheless, a band of other courts in our area have endorsed the procedure,’ and the Second Circuit has affirmed its use.* For reasons explained elsewhere, round-the-clock, privately funded security guards will virtually guarantee — not just reasonably assure — Mr. Epstein’s presence in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, and given the division of authority surrounding the practice, we respectfully propose it here as a fallback, asking the Court to revisit its propriety despite the reservations expressed in Zarrab. Those reservations, though admirably motivated and sincerely held, raise substantial equal protection concerns. They impair the statutory right to release on the least restrictive conditions in the circumstances presented — an inherently individualized determination — based largely on socioeconomic status, a suspect if not invidious classification. Avoiding “inequity and unequal treatment” rooted in such dubious socioeconomic distinctions — doing “equal right to the poor” and “rich” alike — are imperatives that run both ways. /d. (bolding deleted) (citation, footnote and internal quotation marks omitted). 7 See, e.g., United States v. Esposito, 354 F. Supp. 3d 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); United States v. Esposito, 309 F. Supp. 3d 24 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); United States v. Seng, No. 15-CR-706, 2017 WL 2693625 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); United States v. Dreier, 596 F. Supp. 2d 831 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); United States v. Schlegel, No. 06-CR-550, 2008 WL 11338900, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2008), modification denied, 2008 WL 11339654 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008). 8 See United States v. Esposito, 749 F. App’x 20 (2d Cir. 2018); United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007). 10 DOJ-OGR-00000283