Could not find header file for oye
434 U.S. 1340
Otis Bobby MECOM, Applicant,
Sept. 20, 1977.
This is an application for reduction of bail pending appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Following a jury trial in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, applicant was convicted of conspiracy to possess marihuana with intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment to be followed by a special parole term of five years. Applicant's appeal from that conviction is pending in the Court of Appeals.
Before trial, bail was set at $1,000,000. Upon applicant's motion, this was reduced to $750,000. The District Court provided no statement of reasons for setting bail at so high an amount, despite the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 3146(d).1 [434 U.S. 1340 , 1341] Bail was continued at the same amount pending appeal, and again no statement of reasons was provided, although one is required by Fed.Rule App.Proc. 9(b).2 The Court of Appeals denied applicant's motions for reduction of bail. Unable to raise the required amount, he remains incarcerated pending appeal.
Applicant argues that his bail has been set in an excessive and unreasonable amount, citing Sellers v. United Statesd 64 (1968) (Black, J., in chambers). He insists that neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals made a specific finding that applicant would fail to appear. In particular, he alleges that he has substantial roots in the community, that he had never before been charged with a criminal offense and that his interests in a local laundromat- grocery store and a shrimp boat business will serve to keep him from fleeing the jurisdiction.
Decisions of the District Court with respect to bail are entitled to " great deference." Harris v. United States, 404 U.S. 1232 (1971) (Douglas, J., in chambers). A Circuit Justice, however, has a responsibility to make an independent determination on the merits of the application. Ibid. Be- [434 U.S. 1340 , 1342] cause of the District Court's failure to adduce reasons for its decision,3 it was necessary to obtain from the Government a response to applicant's allegations. 4
According to the Government response, the evidence at trial indicated the following: Applicant was involved in a large-scale smuggling enterprise, which imported marihuana into Texas from Mexico in loads of 200 to 700 pounds; the marihuana was then distributed to locations as far away as Indiana; applicant's wife, a co-indictee, acted as his "connection" in Mexico and is currently a fugitive there; another associate in the enterprise is also a fugitive; and applicant and his associates were frequently in possession of large amounts of cash. The Government further states that at the bond hearing there was evidence that applicant paid $100,000 for the murder-unsuccessfully attempted-of an associate suspected of cooperating with the authorities.
Under these circumstances, there is certainly no reason to disturb the rulings of the courts below. Accordingly the application for reduction of bail is denied.
[ Footnote 1 ] Title 18 U.S.C. 3146(d) provides in pertinent part as follows:
See United States v. Briggs, 476 F.2d 947 (C.A.5 1973) (defendants entitled to know reasons for imposition of conditions of release).
[ Footnote 2 ] Rule 9(b) provides as follows:
[ Footnote 3 ] Applicant has raised no objection to the District Court's failure to provide a statement of reasons.
[ Footnote 4 ] Compliance with the requirements of 3146(d) and Rule 9(b) not only facilitates review in this Court of bail decisions, but also may serve to focus the attention of the District Court upon the relevant elements of such decisions.