1985. An indictment was issued the next month. Therefore, I must reject defendant's position.
Under the Act, the government must demonstrate to my satisfaction by clear and convincing evidence that, if released pending trial defendant Askari would pose a threat to members of his community. I conclude that the government has met that burden with respect to defendant Askari. I therefore make the following conclusions of law.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) expressly provides that the court shall order the detention of a defendant prior to trial if, after a hearing, the court finds "that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community . . .".
2. Under the Bail Reform Act, there must be a sufficient evidentiary basis for the court's determination that pretrial detention is necessary. In making my determination I am required to consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether the offense is a crime of violence; (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant including his character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, appearance record, and whether at the time of the offense he was on probation, parole, or other type of release pending trial, sentencing or appeal; and (4) the nature and seriousness of any alleged danger to any person or the community that was posed by the defendant's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
3. I find that there exists probable cause to believe that defendant Askari committed a felony after having been convicted twice of committing a "crime of violence" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4), and therefore, the government is properly proceeding under § 3142(f)(1)(D).
4. The indictment charges defendant Askari with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Appendix, Section 1202(a)(1). I find that the weight of the evidence against Askari is great. I also find the facts to be clear and convincing that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) and (f).
An appropriate order follows.
NOW, April 30, 1985, upon consideration of defendant's motion for reduction of bail, the government's motion to revoke bail and to order pretrial detention, memoranda of law submitted by the parties, the evidence adduced at the April 19, 1985 hearing, the argument of counsel, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying findings of act, discussion and conclusions of law, IT IS ORDERED that
1. Defendant Muhammad Askari shall be detained without bond prior to trial.
2. Defendant Muhammad Askari is to be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility, separate, to the extent practical, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal.
3. Defendant Muhammad Askari is to be offered reasonable opportunity for private consultation with his counsel is connection with this case.
4. Upon further order of this court, or upon the request of counsel for the government, the person or persons in charge of the corrections facilities in which defendant Askari is confined shall deliver defendant Askari to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with court proceedings.
5. Defendant's motion for reduction of bail is DENIED AS MOOT.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.