DOJ-OGR-00002919.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document199 _ Filed 04/09/21 Page7of8 Page 7 the now-apparent weakness of its case.”’”)). Taken together, these factors all point to the conclusion that the defendant now faces an even stronger case with even more severe consequences upon conviction. The S2 Indictment thus further increases the defendant’s incentives to flee, and it does nothing to alter the other factors that the Court previously found weigh in favor of detention, including the defendant’s foreign ties, wealth, skill at evading detection, and prior lack of candor with the Court. The Government has no objection to an in-person arraignment, but the Government objects to the defense request for yet another bail hearing. The defense has now had three bites at that particular apple and is currently appealing the issues raised therein to the Second Circuit, where argument is scheduled to take place on April 26, 2021. The introduction of additional charges, reflecting additional evidence, in no way supports a fourth argument for release, and the Court should not entertain yet another application under these circumstances, especially when this very issue is currently before the Circuit. Certainly, the fact that a grand jury has found probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed even more crimes does not somehow suggest that the Government’s case is in any way weaker than it was at the time of the prior three bail applications. To the contrary, the detailed allegations in the S2 Indictment make clear that there is now more evidence against the defendant. Nor does anything about the S2 Indictment support the defense request that the Court take the extraordinary step of holding an evidentiary hearing on the issue of bail. “It is well established in this circuit that proffers are permissible both in the bail determination and bail revocation contexts.” United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000). “[B]ail hearings are typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce DOJ-OGR-00002919