Court Opinion

ID: 9481184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:10:48.249183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:08.941262
License: Public Domain

BREYER, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the panel majority on three points:
1)The record makes clear that the appel-lee's release, under ordinary conditions of bail, would pose a serious threat to “the safety of ... other person[s] and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). It reveals a past record of violent behavior; a likelihood that appellee swore the most solemn oaths committing him to silence, indeed to kill, witnesses and others at his confederates’ bidding; and strong evidence of present crimes carrying severe penalties; all of which together demonstrate that judicial authorities cannot trust him and that he is the sort of person Congress had in mind when enacting the “preventive detention” provisions of the Bail Reform Act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 9, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.News 3182, 3192. The magistrate so found. The district court did not find to the contrary. The record requires such a finding.
2) The record indicates that appellee’s circumstances differ significantly from those of his alleged associates Biagio DiGiacomo and Antonio Spagnolo, whom the district court released on conditions similar to those involved here. See United States v. DiGiacomo, 746 F.Supp. 1176 (D.Mass.1990). In the case of DiGiacomo and Spag-nolo, the court, prior to releasing them (to a form of house arrest), carefully analyzed the danger they posed. On the one hand, the court recognized that house arrest, compared with incarceration, would make it “at least marginally easier ... to direct criminal activity_” Id. at 1188. On the other hand, the court noted that the two defendants had been fully aware for the previous three years of the government’s forthcoming prosecution, the evidence that it would likely present, and the likely witnesses against them, yet they did not “directly or indirectly” threaten, injure, or attempt to intimidate any government agent or witness “in the three years prior to ... indictment.” Id. at 1187-89. The district court in this case provided no such analysis, it pointed to no such offsetting feature, and the government says it could not have done so, for the appellee in this case was, in effect, surprised by the indictment.
3) There is no explanation at all in the record as to how the pre-trial conditions— the wearing of an electronic bracelet that would mark the appellee’s whereabouts, a pen-register on his telephone, and appel-lee’s promise not to contact unapproved persons — will prevent the appellee from engaging in the most obvious serious risk, namely his planning with others to silence *895witnesses. Of course, should the government catch him communicating with unapproved persons, his brother’s house is forfeited. But, why could the appellee not communicate with visitors inside the house; why could he not obtain an unauthorized telephone; why could he not communicate at night through a window? After all, the electronic bracelet tells the government where he is, it helps prevent flight, but it does not tell the government who is with him, whom he speaks to or what he says. In other words, the record, while explaining that defendant promises not to plan crimes, is totally silent as to how the government can catch the defendant if he does so. It does not discuss the costs or obstacles involved in supervising compliance with the conditions.
I part company with the majority, however, if it means to imply that, given proper record evidence and findings, the district court lacks the legal power to create and to impose a kind of “pre-trial house arrest” upon a defendant such as this one. The statute says that if a “judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure ... the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the person before trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) (emphasis added). I agree that the underlined language does not refer to outlandish conditions, such as requiring several government agents to follow a defendant wherever he goes. Yet, when describing conditions, the statute refers to the court’s power to impose “any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure ... the safety of any other person and the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(B)(xiv) (emphasis added). It seems to me that what is “reasonably necessary” depends upon the circumstances. Where two or three years of pre-trial detention is at stake, and detention is in a distant facility, requiring counsel to drive several hours to confer with his client, conditions that impose cost burdens upon the government might well seem more “reasonable]” than in more usual circumstances. Indeed, if conviction follows, it may prove possible to recoup extra costs through a punitive fine. See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5E1.2(i) (Nov.1989). I should leave an evaluation of “house arrest” and the government’s related claim that courts cannot impose conditions that (to secure “safety”) work a “tremendous financial burden,” all to a later time. It is sufficient here that the record fails to make even a minimal demonstration as to how the conditions imposed meet the threat revealed.