Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

The Detention Hearing in Federal Court

When a per­son is arrested on fed­eral charges, often the gov­ern­ment wants him detained (held with­out bail) while the case is pend­ing. The gov­ern­ment will file a motion for deten­tion, and a mag­is­trate judge will hear evi­dence to deter­mine whether the accused should be detained or released on conditions.

The issue in a deten­tion hear­ing is whether there is any com­bi­na­tion of con­di­tions of release that will ensure that the accused will appear in court and not harm the com­mu­nity. In fed­eral drug con­spir­acy cases, there is almost always a pre­sump­tion of deten­tion. When the mag­is­trate finds that there is prob­a­ble cause to believe the accused com­mit­ted a fed­eral drug crime with a pos­si­ble sen­tence of ten years or more, it is pre­sumed that no com­bi­na­tion of con­di­tions of release will ensure his appear­ance and the safety of the community.

An indict­ment is enough to show that there is prob­a­ble cause. So a per­son indicted for a fed­eral drug con­spir­acy is at a dis­ad­van­tage from the begin­ning of a deten­tion hearing.

While the vast major­ity of peo­ple for whom the gov­ern­ment seeks deten­tion are detained (it’s called a deten­tion hear­ing for good rea­son), there are at least three good rea­sons to fight for release on con­di­tions in vir­tu­ally every case.

First, you might win. A few fed­eral mag­is­trate judges won’t sim­ply rub­ber­stamp the government’s deten­tion request; they will actu­ally lis­ten to the evi­dence and con­sider whether the appear­ance of the accused and the safety of the com­mu­nity can be assured. Some­times the gov­ern­ment will flub and give the mag­is­trate judge a rea­son to doubt the strength of its case (one of the fac­tors the mag­is­trate judge can con­sider in mak­ing her deten­tion). The advan­tage to the accused of release on con­di­tions is obvi­ous; for the defender, it’s gen­er­ally eas­ier to defend a case when the client is at large than when he is incarcerated.

Sec­ond, you may learn some­thing about the case that you wouldn’t oth­er­wise know. The gov­ern­ment will often put an agent on the wit­ness stand to explain in broad strokes the case against the accused. The defense then gets an oppor­tu­nity to cross-examine the agent and, if the agent thinks he knows some­thing about the case, make a record of what evi­dence (pho­tos? video? wire­taps? audio record­ings?) the gov­ern­ment has and does not have against the accused. (I won a fed­eral cocaine con­spir­acy jury trial in the deten­tion hear­ing once because the agent couldn’t resist gild­ing the lily in the hearing.)

Third — and this makes the deten­tion hear­ing a crit­i­cal phase in any fed­eral crim­i­nal case — the accused gets a chance to see you fight­ing for him. The deten­tion hear­ing is often the only oppor­tu­nity the accused gets to see you in action in court before he has to make the go/no-go deci­sion of try­ing the case or plead­ing guilty. If you have fought for him in the deten­tion hear­ing, he will have more con­fi­dence in your abil­ity to defend him in trial, so he’s more likely to trust your advice that he go to trial. On the other hand, he will know that you’re not afraid to fight, so he is more likely to trust your advice that he plead guilty.

There are very very rare cir­cum­stances that jus­tify waiv­ing the deten­tion hear­ing. I’ve done it once or twice in twelve years — never with­out a good rea­son. “Because we won’t win” is never a good rea­son.

Tech­no­rati Tags: , ,

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

One Response to “The Detention Hearing in Federal Court”

Leave a non-anonymous Reply