*1 UNITED STATES of America COOK, Appellant.
Brian G.
No. 24555. Appeals, States Court of of Columbia
District Circuit.
Nov. Washing- Fitzpatrick,
Mr. Brendan G.
ton,
C.,
was on the memorandum
appellant.
law
and fact
Flannery,
Atty.,
Mr.
A.
Thomas
U. S.
Terry,
Atty.,
and Mr. John A.
Asst. U. S.
opposition
appellee.
Judge,
Before
Chief
MacKINNON,
Judge.
Circuit
MacKINNON,
Judge:
Circuit
Appellant
appeals from an order
Cook
denying
of the trial court
his conditional
release or reduction of the
by
bond set as bail
the commit-
ting magistrate pending disposition of
the District Court.
Appellant
July
was indicted on
Bazelon,
Judge,
concurred
1970 on 17 counts for
violations
filed
by
Federal
unregistered
the sale of
Securities Acts
and fraud
securities
by wire.
sale of
and fraud
securities
grand
by the
indictment
returned
eight
jury specified
victims who were
purchase
defrauded in
total
their
32,800
of a
shares of common stock
cor-
poration
The in-
as Cook
known
Jet.
alleges
of-
that Cook
dictment further
fered,
caused
offered
sold and
to be
unreg-
of about
sold total
istered
securities
investors.
Cook Jet
hearing
order
on the
At
committing
magistrate the
set
found
lacked substantial ties to the
apprehensive
appellant would
was
recogni-
on his
magis-
zance and
to lower the
requirement trate’s bail
filing
release be conditioned
$100,000 surety
*2
knowledge
money,
still
it
is common
familiar
with the
We are faced
repute
person
good
argument
a
ob-
appellant
to be an
that
of
could
that
claims
upon
payment
premium
a
put up
of
indigent
a bond of
tain one
the
and cannot
per
The
consequently
should be
of
thousand dollars.
$50
he
about
and
this size
recognizance magnitude
past
transac-
of
on
his
indi-
and
associations
compliance
non-financial
tions
his business
upon
with
and
money might
argument
that
amount
be
car
cate
of
When this
is
conditions.
every
conclusion,
to ob-
logical
indi
available to
If he is unable
him.
to its
ried
surety
his
it
gent
released on
tain a
bond
would be
be
would
inability
premium
require
to
for the
meet
the
and
non-financial conditions
the
mean
bond
the likelihood
would be
but his character and
reasonable bail
ment for
might
jurisdiction
that
ingless
he
into a re
that
the
as it would be turned
prove
indigents
likely
to be a stum-
would most
quirement
for
release of all
bling
securing
solely
his release
block to
non-financial
bail and
without
en-
the
every
in
In our
bail.
considered
instance.
conditions
appel-
opinion,
requirement
reasonable
tire situation
connection with
the
application
lant’s
for conditional
release
that
is a direction
bail be
grant
is
application,
and
to
when consideration
said
that
is reasonable
upheld
given
and
of the ease:
the amount of the bail
all circumstances
bond
to
enormity,
findings
crime,
oral
as
of
its
made
follows:
the nature
the
defendant, his ties
the
the character of
thing that disturbed me were
[T]he
items.
and similar
the
the lack of
defendant’s
ties
ap
represented
Here it
that
is
little,
any,
if
involved
pellant
loan
on a
is
default
rationship
him and
between
[ste]
Public National Bank of
from the
persons
suggested
the two
who were
Columbia;
of
you
party custody,
for third
and when
obtaining
a
was influential
of
that within the framework
loan
Administration
Business
Small
charged,
of
he is
offenses
which
Detergents,
corpora
a
Amei’ican
North
together
has
with what
been adduced
previously
appellant was
tion
with
present
here as to his
re-
financial
employed
comptroller;
that an
and
as
sources,
I
under
condi-
think that
all
represented by
Assistant
informant
higher
tions the
a
one.
should be
being
Attorney
one
as
States
appears that
is a case where
It thus
given
information
reliable
who had
court has
concluded
release
reported that
past
had
FBI
non-financial
will not assure
conditions
he
free
had
said
he
appearance.
such
to this
In addition
flee.
of
im
other conditions
be
free
record indicates that
posed. Wood v. United
129 U.S.
and
ly
around the United
App.D.C.
Eng
visiting
rapid
Europe
succession
;
(1968)
United States v.
Washington,
Chicago
land,
Spain,
and
circumstances,
a
C.
Under
large
(1969)
$100,000 surety
sum
.1
a
bond is
and
its
The trial
court considered
would execute in advance
waiver
country,
rejected
any
the non-financial
con-
from
it should
all
extradition
action
urged
us at
Act
noted that
this is a Securities
are
be
surrendering
treaties,
present
(1)
These
included
and
at
time.
offense
our
(2)
reporting
time,
principal
foreign
passport,
countries
with
his Canadian
difficult,
agency
weekly
daily
cases
the bail
make extradition
such
custody
attorney,
(3)
impossible.
release in the
this condition
if not
So
acceptance
(4)
persons,
inef-
third
novel
named
agreeing
specified employment,
it
circumstances
Under
fective.
any
rejected.
sign
from
a waiver of extradition
country.
proposal
he
As to the
brings
Judge
(concur-
This
tous
ring)
monetary
:
bond that
guarantee appellant’s
I would also
appearance.
remand this case to the
He is
District Court but for
differ-
somewhat
charged
offenses that cumula
ent reasons. Under
Bail Reform
tively
$81,000.
call for
fines
Of
*3
Act,
V,
(Supp.
3146(a)
18 U.S.C. §
course,
possibility
there is
1965-69)
“strong policy
there
favor
is stated to have no
personal recognizance”
of release on
or
prior record,
of the
the circumstances
other non-financial conditions. Wood v.
alleged
numerous
frauds
be of
States,
143,
U.S.App.D.C.
United
129
severity
imposi
require
sufficient
145,
981,
(1968).
391 F.2d
983
But
prison
tion of a substantial
sentence.
unclear,
say
least,
since it is
giveWe
some
consideration to both
presently
the record
before us whether
factors
conclude that the trial
any non-financial conditions would suffi-
ciently
court on remand
wheth
appearance
should consider
assure the
of the
appellant,1
er some reduction
made in the
I would direct the District Court to
reaching
amount of the
appel
determine what financial bond the
state,
conclusion
as he
fully
lant is able to
obtain
to state
heretofore,
has not
done
either
why
the reasons
bond will or will
appeal
or on
“reasonably
appearance
assure the
he,
associates,
or
are able and
of the
for trial.”
18 U.S.C. §
willing
magni
put up. Clearly
3146(a) (Supp. V, 1965-69).
Weav
See
tude of the offenses and
loose
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
er v. United
131
very 388,
(1968) ;
ties to the
call for a
for an trial. requires though form Act release even accordingly We remand the to the available non-financial conditions are in- District Court for in ac- consideration adequate pres- to assure the defendant’s cordance ence.
1.
U.S.App.
Financial conditions are
United
v.
“one
the least
134
hierarchy
38, 40,
169,
(1969) ;
favored” of the
D.C.
412
of conditions
F.2d
171
promulgated
States,
U.S.App.D.C.
Weaver v.
18
United
§
U.S.C.
131
3146(a)
(Supp.
1965-69).
V,
8,
(1968).
Wood
38