DOJ-OGR-00002251(1).jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 106 Filed 12/30/20 Page 19 of 22

None of these conditions would reasonably assure the Defendant’s appearance. Here,
too, the Court’s original determination applies with equal force. As the Court noted at the
original hearing, the Defendant has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to evade detection,
“[e]ven in the face of what the Defense has acknowledged to be extreme and unusual efforts to
locate her.” Tr. at 87:4–87:19. Indeed, regardless of whether the Defendant sought to evade the
press, rather than law enforcement, in the months leading up to her arrest, her sophistication in
evading detection reveals the futility of relying on any conditions, including GPS monitoring,
restrictive home confinement, and private security guards, to secure her appearance. See Tr. at
87:4–88:2. As other courts have observed, “home detention with electronic monitoring does not
prevent flight; at best, it limits a fleeing defendant’s head start.” United States v. Zarger, No. 00-
CR-773-S-1 (JG), 2000 WL 1134364, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2000). Furthermore, while the
Defendant now represents that she would be released to the custody of a family member, who
would serve as the Defendant’s third-party custodian under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B)(i), and
that she secured a residence in the Eastern District of New York, see Def. Mot. at 3, that does not
outweigh the other significant factors weighing in favor of detention. And finally, the
Defendant’s argument that private security guards could ensure her appearance at future
proceedings runs afoul of the Bail Reform Act, which the Second Circuit has held “does not
permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial
while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails.” United States v. Boustani,
932 F.3d 79, 82 (2d Cir. 2019). As in Boustani, the Defendant in the present case would be
detained regardless of her wealth, and “if a similarly situated defendant of lesser means would be
detained, a wealthy defendant cannot avoid detention by relying on his personal funds to pay for
private detention.” Id.

19

DOJ-OGR-00002251