Opinion ID: 151337
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to a Detention Hearing

Text: It is undisputed that Husband was entitled to a detention hearing, and that he did not timely receive one. Appellate review of violations of the Bail Reform Act’s timely hearing requirement is for harmless error. See, e.g., United 1 Husband’s “traverse” brief is dedicated mainly to attacking the effectiveness of appellate counsel’s assistance. 3 States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 722 (1990); see also United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1488 (10th Cir. 1996). A district court’s failure to provide a timely detention hearing, in and of itself, does not require a reviewing court to release a defendant, Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 717-22, and, taken alone, it is not a sufficient justification to reverse an otherwise valid conviction, Meyers, 95 F.3d at 1488. Rather, the record, taken as a whole, must establish that “the error may have had a ‘substantial influence’ on the outcome of the proceeding.” Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 722. Here, neither Husband, nor his attorney have argued that his pre-trial release would have had any bearing, much less “substantially influenced,” the jury’s decision to convict him, or the district court’s decision to sentence him as it did. Indeed, given the fact that he was already serving a lengthy federal sentence and that he had no ties to the community, it would seem unlikely that a detention hearing would have resulted in Husband’s release. In any event, as in Meyers, the issue of whether the district court erred has been effectively mooted by Husband’s subsequent convictions. See 95 F.3d at 1488. 4