Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Congress formulated the Bail Reform Act. The Act allows a federal court to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions 'will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.' The Act requires an adversary hearing to determine if a defendant should be held in pretrial detention without bail. The Act requires a judicial officer to determine whether an arrestee shall be detained. If, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds 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, the court shall order the detention of the person prior to trial. The defendant may request the presence of counsel at the detention hearing, he may testify and present witnesses in his behalf, as well as proffer evidence, and he may cross-examine other witnesses appearing at the hearing. The judicial officer must state his findings of fact in writing, and support his conclusion with 'clear and convincing evidence.' Relevant factors in the decision include the nature and seriousness of the charges, the substantiality of the Government's evidence against the arrestee, the arrestee's background and characteristics, and the nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the suspect's release. Should a judicial officer order detention, the detainee is entitled to expedited appellate review of the detention order.
Salerno (D) and Vincent Cafaro were arrested after being charged in a 29-count indictment alleging various crimes. The RICO counts alleged 35 acts of racketeering activity, including fraud, extortion, gambling, and conspiracy to commit murder. The Government (P) moved to have Ds detained in that no condition of release would assure the safety of the community or any person. A hearing was held, and P made a detailed proffer of evidence. D was the 'boss' of the Genovese crime family of La Cosa Nostra and that Cafaro was a 'captain' in the Genovese family. Based in large part on wiretaps, Ds had participated in wide-ranging conspiracies to aid their illegitimate enterprises through violent means. P also offered the testimony of two of its trial witnesses, who would assert that D personally participated in two murder conspiracies. D offered the testimony of several character witnesses as well as a letter from his doctor stating that he was suffering from a serious medical condition. Cafaro presented no evidence at the hearing, but instead characterized the wiretap conversations as merely 'tough talk.' P's motion was granted by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would ensure the safety of the community or any person. Ds appealed, contending that to the extent that the Bail Reform Act permits pretrial detention on the ground that the arrestee is likely to commit future crimes, it is unconstitutional on its face. The Second Circuit agreed; Authorization of pretrial detention [on the ground of future dangerousness] is repugnant to the concept of substantive due process, which we believe prohibits the total deprivation of liberty simply as a means of preventing future crimes.' Although a court could detain an arrestee who threatened to flee before trial, such detention would be permissible because it would serve the basic objective of a criminal system - bringing the accused to trial. The court construed Gerstein as limiting such detention to the '`administrative steps incident to arrest.'' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co