United States v. Roman Rodriguez
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roman RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
BY THE COURT:
Appellant Roman Rodriguez and others were indicted for RICO violations involving drug offenses and, in part, murder. On the issue of pretrial detention the government relied on the statutory presumption in 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (e) and on a detailed factual presentation. The district court applied the procedures set out in U.S. v. Hurtado, 779 F.2d 1467 (11th Cir.1985). The government’s evidence emphasized potential dangerousness. The court found this evidence by the government to be credible and clear and convincing and thus that the statutory presumptions were not sufficiently rebutted to deny pretrial detention. 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (f)(2)(B). We find no error in these conclusions.
We agree with the Seventh and Third Circuits that allowing pretrial detention because of potential dangerousness of the accused is constitutional.
U.S. v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758 (7th Cir.1986);
U.S. v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3rd Cir.1985).
Contra see U.S. v. Salerno, 794 F.2d 64 (2nd Cir.1986);
U.S. v. Melandez-Carrion, 790 F.2d 984 (2nd Cir.1986).
The order of the district court denying pretrial release is AFFIRMED and the motion for bail pending appeal is DENIED.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.