Summary
The Ninth Circuit denied Gonzolo Gonzales's emergency motion for bond pending trial and his application to stay the trial. The court held that although the district court's 36-day delay in reviewing his detention order violated the promptness requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), conditional release was not an appropriate remedy where the defendant had been found to pose a danger to the community.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court's delay in hearing Gonzales's motion to revoke his detention violated the promptness requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
- Whether conditional release was an appropriate remedy for a violation of the promptness requirement when the defendant had been found to pose a danger to the community.
Holdings
- Conditional release is not an appropriate remedy for a violation of the promptness requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) when the district court and magistrates have found that release would pose a danger to the community.
- The emergency motion for bond pending trial and the application for a stay pending disposition of that motion are denied.
Key quotations
“In Fernandez-Alfonso, we held that a thirty-day delay “violates the promptness requirement of Section 3145(b).”” (1215)
“We decline to extend Fernandez-Alfonso to a case involving a finding of danger to the community.” (1215)
“The emergency motion for bond pending trial is DENIED. The application for stay pending disposition of the emergency motion for bond pending trial is DENIED.” (1215)
Factual background
Gonzales was arrested in California on a complaint from the Western District of Washington charging conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Following a detention hearing, magistrates ordered him detained based on danger to the community and risk of flight. After his transfer and arraignment in Washington, the district court delayed approximately 36 days before hearing his motion for revocation of detention and ultimately found that no conditions would reasonably assure his appearance or the community's safety.
Procedural history
A magistrate in the Central District of California ordered Gonzales detained after finding that he posed a danger to the community and a flight risk. After Gonzales was transferred to the Western District of Washington and arraigned, a magistrate continued the detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Gonzales moved for revocation of detention, but the district court did not hear the motion until 36 days later and then denied it. He appealed and sought emergency bond and a stay of the scheduled trial, which the Ninth Circuit denied.