DOJ-OGR-00020296.jpg

Case 21-58, Document 76, 04/19/2021, 3080288, Page6 of 30 occurred here. The LaFontaine Court explained that “while the informality of bail hearings serves the demands of speed, the ... district judge must also ensure the reliability of the evidence, ‘by selectively insisting upon the production of the underlying evidence of evidentiary sources where their accuracy is in question.” Id. at 131 (quoting Martir, 782 F.2d at 1147). And in Martir, this Court recognized the “high stakes” involved in a detention hearing and explained that the power afforded to the lower courts “should always be exercised ‘with the recognition that a pretrial detention hearing may restrict for a significant time the liberty of a presumably innocent person.” 782 F.2d at 1145 Gnternal citations omitted). It then criticized the government’s proffer as stating in “the most general and conclusory terms what it hoped to provide,” for failing to submit any “independent evidence, such as tapes, documents, or photographs,” and for failing to furnish any testimony or affidavits. Id. at 1147. Sounds familiar. Unlike Martir, where this Court found that it could not reverse because the defense “did not challenge the proffer in any way, Ms. Maxwell absolutely challenged the flimsy proffer from the initial bail hearing through three renewals. Instead of properly putting the Government to the test, the court blindly, uncritically, and DOJ-OGR- 00020296