Once the court suppresses evidence, it cannot be included in the determination of whether the defendant should continue to be detained on the weight of the evidence against the accused. United States v. Barner, 743 F. Supp. 2d 225 (W.D. N.Y. 2010):<\/p>\n
Some courts have held that evidence which is being suppressed for purposes of trial may nevertheless be considered in evaluating the \u201cweight of the evidence\u201d factor under \u00a7 3142(g)<\/a>. See Pina-Aboite, 97 Fed. Appx. 832, 2004 WL 1053235, *2 (\u201cIn a detention hearing, the district court is permitted to consider the evidence sought to be suppressed as if it were admissible\u201d); United States v. Jay<\/a>, 261 F.Supp.2d 1235, 1240 (D.Or. 2003) (\u201cA court should have as much information as possible to evaluate properly whether a defendant poses any risk of danger to the community if released. Thus, even though this Court suppressed evidence for purposes of trial, that evidence may speak loudly concerning community safety because it involves convicted felons in unlawful possession of multiple weapons and cocaine\u201d).<\/p>\n
Notwithstanding these authorities from other circuits, for the following reasons I conclude that the suppressed evidence should be given little or no weight in applying this factor. In deciding to consider the suppressed evidence for purposes of pretrial detention, the court in Jay applied a \u201ccost-benefit\u201d analysis, citing United States v. Leon<\/a>, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984): \u201cThe court concludes \u2026 [that] consideration of the suppressed evidence is warranted under cost-benefit analysis, particularly when applying the statutory release factors that bear on community safety\u201d. Jay<\/a>, 261 F. Supp.2d at 1240.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading