United States v. Madoff
316 F. App'x 58 (2009)
Rule of Law:
Post-conviction, a defendant bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk to be granted bail pending sentencing, and a court may permissibly infer a risk of flight from the defendant's advanced age, length of potential sentence, and means to flee.
Facts:
- Bernard L. Madoff was convicted of federal crimes and awaited sentencing.
- Madoff was 70 years old at the time of the proceedings.
- Madoff faced a statutory maximum prison sentence of 150 years.
- Madoff possessed a residence outside of the United States.
- Madoff had access to and control over substantial financial resources for a long period prior to his conviction.
- Madoff claimed his assets were fully accounted for and inaccessible to him.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York convicted the defendant.
- The defendant moved for bail pending sentencing in the District Court.
- The District Court denied the motion for bail, ordering the defendant detained.
- The defendant appealed the detention order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court commit clear error in denying bail pending sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a) by relying on the defendant's advanced age, potential life sentence, and potential access to hidden assets to conclude the defendant failed to prove he is not a flight risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The District Court's finding that the defendant failed to show he was not a flight risk was not clearly erroneous. The Court reasoned that once a defendant is convicted, they lose the presumption of innocence and bear the burden of proving they are not likely to flee. The Court held that Madoff's age (70) combined with a massive potential sentence (150 years) created a natural and strong incentive to flee. Furthermore, regarding the means to flee, the Court determined the district judge was not required to accept Madoff's claim that his assets were frozen or accounted for, given his residence abroad and the opportunity he had to secrete funds. Consequently, the denial of bail was affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the heavy burden placed on white-collar defendants seeking release after conviction but before sentencing. The Second Circuit clarified that 'incentive to flee' is a legitimate proxy for 'risk of flight,' particularly when the math of the defendant's age and sentence length effectively equals a life sentence. Notably, the court established that a defendant's own representations regarding their financial insolvency or frozen assets need not be accepted at face value by the court, especially in cases involving massive fraud where funds could easily have been hidden previously. The ruling reinforces the high deference appellate courts give to district courts regarding factual determinations on bail.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Madoff (2009)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"