United States v. Liebowitz
669 F. App'x 603
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Shimen Liebowitz indicted for kidnapping and murder-for-hire conspiracies under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201(c), 1958; district court ordered pretrial detention and he appealed.
- Government argued Liebowitz participated in the charged crimes and knew or acquiesced in use of violence; recorded statements suggested awareness of violent outcomes.
- Liebowitz contended he had no prior violent charges, expressed reluctance about using violence, and argued past conduct did not prove future dangerousness.
- Liebowitz also disputed flight-risk findings, citing strong local ties in Kiryas Joel and noting Australia and Israel have extradition treaties with the U.S.
- District court found no conditions could reasonably assure appearance or community safety; denied bail. Second Circuit reviewed factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liebowitz is a danger to the community | Evidence of involvement and knowledge of violence shows future threat | No prior violent charges; hesitant to use violence; past conduct insufficient for future threat | Court: Findings supported; evidence shows knowledge/acquiescence to violence; detention justified |
| Whether Liebowitz is a flight risk | Severe potential sentence and foreign ties (Australian citizenship, family abroad) create strong incentive to flee | Strong local ties (wife, daughter, Kiryas Joel); extradition treaties with Israel/Australia make flight futile | Court: Flight risk established due to sentence exposure, dual citizenship, family abroad, and access to resources |
| Whether electronic monitoring/home confinement would mitigate risks | Conditions proposed by Liebowitz | Monitoring unreliable; Liebowitz sought frequent exceptions to confinement | Court: Conditions insufficient to reasonably assure appearance or safety |
| Whether district court erred in factual findings | Findings supported by record | Challenges to clear-error standard and weight of evidence | Court: No clear error; detention order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) (nature of charged offense and strong evidence can support dangerousness finding)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 493 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (significant sentence exposure and foreign ties can indicate flight risk)
- United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard of review: factual findings on detention reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2004) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628 (2d Cir. 1993) (electronic monitoring/home detention may be inadequate because they can be circumvented)