472 F. App'x 25
2d Cir.2012Background
- Bartok is indicted for conspiracy to commit bankruptcy, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and related offenses.
- The district court revoked bail pending trial based on probable cause to believe Bartok committed perjury in a CJA financial affidavit.
- The district court conducted a proffer-based hearing and announced it would keep the record open for supplementation; Bartok did not supplement.
- The perjury finding rested on omissions in Bartok’s affidavit, including a $21,000 retirement withdrawal and under-disclosure of assets.
- A rebuttable presumption of danger arises under § 3148(b) when there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed a felony while released; the district court upheld detention on this basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the bail revocation hearing adequate under § 3148(b)? | Bartok contends the hearing was inadequate. | Bartok argues more extensive hearings were required. | No clear error; discretion to use proffer and informal proceedings upheld. |
| Did the district court clearly err in finding probable cause of perjury? | Bartok asserts insufficient evidence of perjury. | Bartok argues omissions were not willful per se. | Probable cause support for perjury found; omissions viewed as likely willful. |
| Does a probable-cause finding of felony trigger the § 3148(b) presumption of danger? | Bartok challenges applicability of the presumption. | Bartok concedes the presumption applies but argues limited impact. | Presumption properly triggered and weighs against release. |
| Were the conditions of release sufficient to address risk of public danger or flight? | Bartok challenges sufficiency of conditions. | Bartok had no rebuttal evidence; conditions inadequate. | District court's conclusion that no conditions could assure safety/appearance stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2000) (rebuttable presumption doctrine and detention standards in bail revocation)
- United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141 (2d Cir. 1986) (informal hearings and avoidance of mini-trials in revocation)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard for review of bail revocation findings)
- United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) (review standard for factual findings in revocation determinations)
- Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (probability-based evaluation of dangerousness and related standards)