DOJ-OGR-00000791.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 32 Filed 07/18/19 Page 8 of 33
Case 19-2321, Document 2, 07/23/2019, 2614674, Page 8 of 33

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). A Court does not need to find both bases are proven to order a defendant’s
detention. See id.; United States v. Blanco, 570 F. App’x 76, 78 (2d Cir. 2014). Dangerousness
means that the defendant is a “danger to the safety of any other person or the community.” 18
U.S.C. § 3142. A finding of dangerousness must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.
See, e.g., United States v. Ferranti, 66 F.3d 540, 542 (2d Cir. 1995). “Where there is a strong
probability that a person will commit additional crimes if released, the need to protect the
community becomes sufficiently compelling that detention is, on balance, appropriate.” United
States v. Chimurenga, 760 F.2d 400, 403 (2d Cir. 1985). “[E]ven a single incident of witness
tampering . . . [may be] sufficient to revoke bail.” LaFontaine, 210 F.3d at 134.

To order detention based upon risk of flight, the Court must find by a preponderance of
the evidence that “that no conditions could reasonably assure the defendant's presence at trial.”
See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir. 1987); 18 U.S.C. § 3142. “[T]he
constitutional limits on a detention period based on dangerousness to the community may be
looser than the limits on a detention period based solely on risk of flight. In the former case,
release risks injury to others, while in the latter case, release risks only the loss of a conviction.”
United States v. Millan, 4 F.3d 1038, 1048 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Orena, 986
F.2d 628, 631 (2d Cir. 1993)). A bail package that “may reasonably assure the appearance of [the
defendant] at trial will not [necessarily] assure the safety of the community.” United States v.
Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1991).

The Bail Reform Act sets forth the following four factors to be considered in the
release/remand analysis: (1) the nature and circumstances of the crime(s) charged; (2) the weight
of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, including
the person’s character and financial resources; and (4) the seriousness of the danger posed by the

8

DOJ-OGR-00000791