1

20-1745-cr

United States of America v. Deutsch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed 

on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 32.1 and this Court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a 

document filed with this Court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an 

electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order 

must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at 

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, 

on the 22nd day of September, two thousand twenty.

PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES,

BARRINGTON D. PARKER,

REENA RAGGI,

Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 20-1745-cr

v.

JONATHAN DEUTSCH,

Defendant-Appellee.

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: MEGAN FARRELL, Assistant United States 

Attorney, (on the briefs) DAVID C. JAMES,

MARGARET LEE, and MEGAN FARRELL,

Assistant United States Attorneys for

RICHARD P. DONOGHUE, United States 

Attorney, Eastern District of New York,

Brooklyn, NY.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: MATTHEW B. LARSEN, Federal Defenders 

of New York, New York, NY.
2

Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New 

York (Frederic Block, Judge).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and hereby is

AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant the United States of America (the “Government”) appeals the June 4, 

2020 and July 1, 2020 orders of the District Court authorizing the release of Defendant-Appellee 

Jonathan Deutsch (“Deutsch”) on bail pending trial on multiple counts of attempted and actual 

production of child pornography. The Government argues that the District Court erred when it (1) 

failed to consider that Deutsch’s alleged crimes created a rebuttable presumption of pretrial 

detention under Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), and (2) determined that the changing 

circumstances caused by the COVID-19 pandemic justified reversing its prior denial of bail. The 

Government seeks the reversal of the District Court’s order and the entry of a permanent order of

detention pending trial. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural 

history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review a district court’s findings as to the accused’s risk of flight and potential danger to 

the community for clear error.” United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311, 319 (2d Cir. 2011). Under this 

standard, we will reverse only if “on the entire evidence[,] we are left with the definite and firm 

conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Mattis, 963 F.3d 285, 291 (2d Cir. 

2020) (internal citations omitted). The Government has not shown that the District Court 

committed clear error here. Contrary to the Government’s contention, a fair reading of the record as 

a whole shows that the District Court held Deutsch to his “limited burden of production,” id. at 290

(internal citations omitted), under § 3142(e)(3) of the Bail Reform Act to rebut the presumption of 

detention. Furthermore, the District Court authorized Deutsch’s release only after reasonably 

concluding, based on copious evidence and argument, that the conditions of release (including 

extensive electronic and physical monitoring by the Government) reasonably assured the safety of 

the community and guarded against the risk of flight. A review of the record does not leave us with 

a “definite and firm conviction” that the District Court erred. Id. at 291. Accordingly, we affirm. 

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all the arguments raised by Plaintiff-Appellant on appeal and find them to 

be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the June 4 and July 1, 2020 orders of the 

District Court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk