DOJ-OGR-00001151.jpg

the Court concluded that electronic monitoring and home security guards "would be insufficient" because the defendant could remove the monitor and evade security guards. (Tr. 87-88). Finally, the Court rejected the defense's arguments about the risks of COVID-19 and the difficulty of preparing a defense with an incarcerated client. In so doing, the Court noted that the defendant has no underlying conditions that place her at heightened risk of complications from COVID-19 and emphasized that the defendant had many months to prepare for trial. (Tr. 89-90).
Viewing all of these factors together, the Court ordered the defendant detained pending trial. (Tr. 91).

APPLICABLE LAW
Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., federal courts are empowered to order a defendant detained pending trial upon a determination that the defendant poses a risk of flight. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). When seeking detention on this ground, "[t]he Government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence both that the defendant 'presents an actual risk of flight' and that 'no condition or combination of conditions could be imposed on the defendant that would reasonably assure his presence in court.'" United States v. Boustani, 932 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Sabhani, 493 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2007)). The Bail Reform Act lists three factors to be considered in the detention analysis when the Government seeks detention based on flight risk: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crimes charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; and (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including the person's "character. [and] financial resources." See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). If a judicial officer concludes that "no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).