DOJ-OGR-00000338.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document11_ Filed 07/12/19 Page 10 of 14 Honorable Richard M. Berman United States District Judge July 12, 2019 Page 10 Bruno, 89 F. Supp. 3d 425, 432 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (“Even if Defendant had the financial capacity to replicate a private jail within his own home, this Court is not convinced that such a set of conditions would be sufficiently effective in this case to protect the community from Defendant, or that such disparate treatment based on wealth is permissible under the Bail Act.”)); Borodin, 136 F. Supp. 2d at 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (Nickerson, J.) (“It is contrary to underlying principles of detention and release on bail that individuals otherwise ineligible for release should be able to buy their way out by constructing a private jail, policed by security guards not trained or ultimately accountable to the government, even if carefully selected.”). If the defendant’s appearance can only be assured through use of round-the-clock guards, the defendant belongs in a federal detention center, not released under bail conditions that effectively create a private prison of one, using guards to be paid by the defendant himself. It is frankly outrageous for the defendant to suggest that preventing him from using his vast wealth to duplicate a private prison that cannot control, monitor, and contain him consistent with the requirements of the Bail Act would cause him to somehow “bear a special disadvantage.” Release Motion at 12 n.9. Indeed: “What more compelling case for an order of detention is there than a case in which only an armed guard and the threat of deadly force is sufficient to assure the defendant’s appearance?” Zarrab, 2016 WL 3681432, at *12 (quoting United States v. Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at 295). Tl. The Defendant Provides No Assurance He is Not a Danger to the Community and a Risk to Obstruct Justice A. Danger to the Community In the first instance, the defendant’s argument that 14 years without a criminal conviction eliminates “any danger presumption” should be rejected. Were that the case—which is certainly is not—a lack of criminal record for any defendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App’x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant’s lack of criminal record was “not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to manifest clear error in the district court’s determination that no combination of release conditions . . . could reasonably assure against dangerousness and the risk of flight”). Moreover, here, the defendant not only has a criminal record, but has been convicted of a sex crime involving a minor. But the ongoing and forward-looking danger posed by the defendant is further demonstrated by the defendant’s maintenance of a substantial collection of photographic trophies of his victims and other young females in his mansion, as discovered by the Government through its search warrants. As indicated in the Detention Memo, the many discs found in the defendant’s residence included those with hand-written labels including the following: “Young [Name] + [Name],” “Misc nudes 1,” and “Girl pics nude.” Not surprisingly, the Government has found that such discs contain photographs of sexually suggestive photographs of fully- or partially-nude females appearing to be underage. DOJ-OGR- 00000338