United States v. Roman Rodriguez

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Roman Rodriguez

803 F.2d 1102, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33572

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 1986

Docket86-5631

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 803 F.2d 1102 (United States v. Roman Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Roman Rodriguez, 803 F.2d 1102, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33572 (11th Cir. 1986).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

803 F.2d 1102, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 33572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-roman-rodriguez-ca11-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack