Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealtrialmotionlease

defendantprecedentappealtrialmotionwillleasecriminal procedurewrit of certiorari

Related Cases

U.S. v. Safavian, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 3378479

Facts

David Safavian was convicted by a jury on three counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of a GSA-OIG investigation. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison and subsequently filed multiple notices of appeal. Safavian sought release on bond while his appeal was pending, arguing that he posed no risk of flight or danger to the community and that his appeal raised substantial legal questions.

On June 20, 2006, David Hossein Safavian was convicted by a jury of three counts of false statements and concealments pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1), and one count of obstruction of a GSA-OIG investigation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1505.

Issue

Whether David Safavian should be released on bond pending his appeal, considering the criteria set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), a defendant may be released on bond pending appeal if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that they are not likely to flee or pose a danger to the community, and that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact.

The United States Code provides that: [The Court] shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to … the community … and that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in: (i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Safavian met the criteria for release on bond. It found that he had shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was not a flight risk and that he raised substantial questions of law regarding the admission of evidence and his legal duty to disclose. The court noted that if these issues were resolved in his favor, it could lead to a new trial.

The Court agrees with the defendant that a number of the issues raised in the pre-trial motions, the motion for judgment of acquittal, and motion for a new trial are substantial and some are without precedent in this Circuit. If some of these issues were decided in Mr. Safavian's favor on appeal, a new trial likely would be required.

Conclusion

The court granted Safavian's motion for release on bond pending appeal and stayed his sentence, recognizing the potential for a new trial based on the substantial questions raised.

The Court will grant defendant's motion to remain on bond pending appeal, and will stay his sentence pursuant to Rule 38(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Who won?

David Safavian prevailed in this case as the court granted his motion for release on bond, finding that he met the necessary legal criteria.

The government concedes, and the Court agrees, that Mr. Safavian does not present a risk of flight or a danger to the community.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291, 70 USLW 4205, 70 USLW 4216, 02 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2737, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3311, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 161

In re Marriage of Kile and Kendall, 186 Wash.App. 864, 347 P.3d 894

Khani v. Ford Motor Co., 215 Cal.App.4th 916, 155 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4204, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5399

United States v. Damato, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 2088100

Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 67 S.Ct. 1249, 91 L.Ed. 1546, 1 Media L. Rep. 1310