Opinion ID: 468543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The District Court Review

Text: 27 Perry moved, pursuant to section 3145(b) of the Bail Reform Act, for review by the district court of the magistrate's detention order. We have held that this section authorizes the district court to hold a de novo hearing. See Delker, 757 F.2d at 1394. The district court elected to hold such a hearing. The United States produced the Complaint in No. 85-253M, the magistrate's detention order, and the transcript of proceedings before the magistrate, each of which was marked as an exhibit. The court noted that the complaint charged an offense that triggered the section 3142(e) presumption and asked counsel for Perry to proceed on the assumption that the burden of overcoming the presumption was on the defendant. 28 At that point Perry's counsel moved for Perry's release, arguing that the Act was unconstitutional under the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments, and all the other so-called rights, privileges and protections the individual has been given. Transcript before district court in No. 85-253M at 8-9, 13. Counsel also relied on the presumption of innocence and substantive personal liberty. Id. at 9. He also objected to the government's failure in the hearing before the magistrate to produce as witnesses persons to whom hearsay statements had been attributed. Thus he made a procedural as well as a substantive due process challenge. Finally, he asked that before attempting to prove that Mr. Perry will not flee or is not a danger to the community, I would ask your honor to dismiss the detention petition as unconstitutional.... Id. at 13. 29 Responding to the motion to release on the ground that the Act is unconstitutional, the Assistant United States Attorney outlined the evidence that had been presented to the magistrate. He had difficulty presenting further argument because the district judge made a lengthy statement as to his reactions to the Bail Reform Act. The court concluded with the statement that the Bail Reform Act is dangerous and also unconstitutional. Id. at 31. The court ruled, I will set a bond for this man. The Act is unconstitutional on its face. Id. at 32. 30 Following this ruling there was a recess. Several hours later the court reconvened and advised counsel, I think we ought to address one issue we omitted to address, and that is in case of 85-253M. That is as to whether or not this man would flee the community. We never addressed that, right? Id. at 42. Thus it appears that the court's holding as to unconstitutionality referred only to the preventive detention, not the danger of flight aspect of the statute. 31 Perry took the stand and testified about his ties to the community, the fact that he was out on bail from state court charges and had not fled, his education, and his intention to remain in Allegheny County to face all charges. The transcript of the resumed hearing discloses that the only issue addressed was whether or not Perry was likely to flee. No testimony was presented and no argument was made about Perry's danger to the community. The United States represented that it had no witnesses to present on the issue of risk of flight. At this point the court ruled, All right, I am going to reiterate my former order and allow this man to be freed, provided he posts a $100,000 bond with a sufficient surety. Id. at 73. With that the proceedings in No. 85-253M concluded. 5 Thus the record before us consists of the record made in No. 85-253M before the magistrate, Perry's testimony on risk of flight, the argument of counsel as to unconstitutionality of the preventive detention provision, the district court's ruling regarding the constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act, and the district court's written order granting bail.