When a judge decides to imprison a client before their trial, even though they haven’t been convicted and are presumed innocent, it effectively bypasses the usual legal process. It’s like skipping the initial steps and going straight to sentencing, without any chance to collect resources or build a defense.
The practice of pre-trial detention should ideally be reserved for the most serious or potentially violent alleged offenders. However, this is often not the case.
Furthermore, pre-trial detention facilities are often even worse than the prisons where clients may eventually serve their actual sentences. These facilities are marked by deprivation and danger, making it extremely difficult for individuals to defend themselves or assist their lawyers effectively.
It is high time to reconsider the approach to pre-trial detention in the federal system.
In this episode, we will discuss several important aspects related to pre-trial detention:
- The burden of proof in a detention hearing.
- How prosecutors utilize pre-trial detention as leverage during plea bargaining.
- Statistics on the government’s frequency of motions to revoke bond.
- Analyzing the Sam Bankman Fried case to understand pre-trial revocation.
- Examining revocation statistics for individuals charged with witness tampering, particularly in Washington, DC.
- Distinguishing between the conduct of Sam Bankman Fried and that of Donald Trump and questioning why Trump has managed to avoid the consequences of pre-trial release.
- Assessing whether Judge Chutkin’s threat to expedite the trial as a consequence of pre-trial release violations holds true or if it is merely an empty warning.
