United States v. Ali
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67818
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Defendant Ali Muhamed Ali is charged by superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit piracy, piracy, attack to plunder a vessel, and hostage taking under federal law.
- The hijacking involved the M/V CEC Future, Bahamian-flagged, in the Gulf of Aden, with crew held from November 7, 2008 to January 16, 2009.
- Ali boarded the vessel in November 2008 and engaged in ransom negotiations on behalf of the pirates, including communicating with Clipper Group A/S.
- Ransom of $1.7 million was paid by Clipper Group on January 14, 2009; ship and crew released January 16, 2009.
- Ali moved for bond review arguing nonviolent role and lack of knowledge of plan; government sought detention under the Bail Reform Act.
- Court applies presumption against release under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(C) for offenses with potential life sentence; presumption remains a factor after evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory presumption against release applies. | Ali involved hostage-taking—presumption applicable, requiring detention unless rebutted. | Presumption should not bar release given nonviolent role and lack of planning. | Presumption applies; detention justified given other factors and flight risk. |
| Is Ali a flight risk based on factors and evidence presented? | Ali has aliases, past misrepresentations to INS, overseas ties, and life-term exposure; high flight risk. | Significant ties to Somaliland/Somalia and U.S. support mitigate flight risk; extradition unlikely. | Probable flight risk established; Ali poses substantial risk of evading prosecution. |
| Weight of the evidence supporting Ali's role in piracy negotiations. | Eyewitnesses, recordings, and Ali's admissions show active involvement as negotiator for pirates. | Ali acted as a neutral middleman; recordings show ambiguity; company paid him after hostage release. | Evidence supports a contested but substantial claim of involvement; jury will decide. |
| Whether Ali's ties to the U.S. and Somaliland, and lack of U.S. assets, compel release under Karni/Hanson analogies. | Overseas ties and lack of U.S. real property heighten flight risk; Karni/Hanson distinctions do not compel release. | Karni/Hanson show possible release with conditions where appropriate; Ali lacks strong U.S. ties. | Distinguishable; presumption and severity of charges favor detention. |
| Whether conditions of release could reasonably assure appearance. | Electronic monitoring; extradition waivers; third-party custody unlikely to ensure appearance. | Conditions could be sufficient under certain cases; extradition waiver could help. | No combination of conditions reasonably assures appearance; detention appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gloster, 969 F. Supp. 92 (D.D.C. 1997) (liberty is the norm; detention is limited exception.)
- United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94 (D.C.Cir. 1987) (four-factor test for detention under Bail Reform Act.)
- United States v. Mosuro, 648 F. Supp. 316 (D.D.C. 1986) (probable cause indiction interacts with presumption to detain.)
- United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (recognizes presumption and burden shifting in detention.)
- United States v. O'Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990) (presumption as factor among others in release decision.)
- United States v. Karni, 298 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2004) (nonviolent charge; differences from presumption case; release possible with conditions.)
- United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85 (D.D.C. 2009) (nonviolent charge; strong U.S. ties; release with conditions possible.)
- United States v. Anderson, 384 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 2005) (flight risk despite nonviolent charges; ties and version of risk.)
- United States v. Bess, 678 F. Supp. 929 (D.D.C. 1988) (presumption integrated into § 3142(g) analysis.)
- United States v. Khanu, 370 F. App'x 121 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (alias use and deception as evidence of flight risk.)