I'm assuming this guy has charges in two different jurisdictions: the State of California and the feds.
I'm not totally clear on whether the California charge or the federal charge indicates that he is ineligible, but maybe the way to look at it is this: if you bond him out in one case, he just goes and sits in jail for the one where he is ineligible and if you were able to bond him out on both cases, then you have tied up a ton of money for this guy to be out when he is facing some serious time in two different places. Considering the quantity of drugs alone, I would suggest that the kind of money it would take to bond this guy out in both places would be FAR better spent on retaining a really talented lawyer to represent him in both cases and hopefully make it so he will not be spending a large chunk of the rest of his life in prison. Perhaps such an attorney can even work something out in terms of bond, but right now, I respectfully suggest that the priority should be finding someone to represent this guy as soon as possible.
Bail is really important to both inmates and families, we all know that, but it is important that the families and the inmates take a long view on things. If this guy is willing to sacrifice some time and freedom now and put those resources toward representation in court, I think it would be better for him in the long run.
No federal detainee is ineligible for bond based solely on the pending charges. However, in this particular case, there is a rebuttable presumption, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2), that no condition or combination of conditions will assure the defendant's appearance in court and the safety of any other person and the community. Of course, that presumption may be rebutted, and if it is, the magistrate must release the defendant on the least restrictive conditions that will assure such appearance and safety. Nonetheless, a magistrate may find the issue of bond moot if there are pending detainers (or "holds") from other jurisdictions.
Joshua Sabert Lowther, Esq.
NATIONAL FEDERAL DEFENSE GROUP
Over a kilo of meth carries sever penilties. I agree with the other attoreys in that any money would be better spent on an attorey at this point. I would hate to see him get out only to get hit with the manditory minimum of 10 years.
Claiborne H. Ferguson, Esq. is * Certified as a Specialist in Criminal Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy. * Certified as a Specialist in Criminal Trial Advocacy by the Tennessee Commission on Continuing Legal Education and Specialization.
It appears that the person you are asking about has likely had a detention hearing in federal court. Under 18 U.S.C. Sec 3142(f)(2)(B) "The [detention] hearing may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and community"
Section 3142(c)(B)(xii) does allow a judge to make a condition that the defendant post a bond. The problem I can foresee is that Under 3142 there is a presumption of detention based on the charge. Speak with the attorney handling this case and they can likely give you more information about the release status and if he/she does not have an attorney, get one.