On March 2, 1986, two men named Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro were arrested and indicted on 29 counts of RICO or racketeering influenced and corrupt organization act violations, mail and wire fraud, criminal gambling, and fraud. The violations of the RICO act included 35 acts of extortion, gambling, fraud, and conspiracy to commit murder. The Government’s case painted Salerno as the boss of a crime family organization called the Genovese crime family of La Costa Nostra and Cafaro was another, lower leader of the crime family. The Government moved to have the two men detained at arraignment, concluding that they both posed a danger to the community and no conditions of release would protect the safety of the community. The District Court
…show more content…
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed over a dissent. The Court may have agreed that their pretrial detention could be in place based on the dangers posed by the defendants, the Court stated the Government could not, based on due process. Pretrial detention is believed by the Court to deprive the defendant of their liberty to prevent them from committing future crime. They government could not hold someone because it was thought they could pose a danger or threat to society. To override the Act, they must present that no set of circumstances existed where the Act would be valid. The defendants presented grounds they believed invalidated the Act’s ability to permit pretrial detention for dangerous individuals. They stated that consistent with the Court of Appeals conclusion, the Act exceeds limits placed on the Federal Government by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Further, they contend the Act contravenes Eighth Amendment proscription against excessive bail. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
ISSUE:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, does pretrial detention violate and individuals rights when the detention is based on the possible dangerousness of the defendant?
HOLDING:
No. It is not invalid under the Due Process Clause, …show more content…
I do not believe Salerno had a good case and the decision for pretrial detention was correct. Based on the wiretaps, the defendants were both violent and were no strangers to conspiracies for cover ups and murders. The claim that the Act was invalid based on the fifth and eighth amendments was easily voided by the Court. The lack of bail does not mean excessive bail, and while i think that is used as a loophole, it makes sense. No one is guaranteed bail, and everyone who isn't given bail has the opportunity to fight it. The interest of the public I believe is much more important than an individuals rights. If there is evidence that a defendant is dangerous, like the recorded conversations between the defendants, they do not need to be out on bail before trials. Not only could they make a run for it, but they could intimidate witnesses and ruin evidence. It is in the best interest of the public and the case that they be held without bail pending
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed over a dissent. The Court may have agreed that their pretrial detention could be in place based on the dangers posed by the defendants, the Court stated the Government could not, based on due process. Pretrial detention is believed by the Court to deprive the defendant of their liberty to prevent them from committing future crime. They government could not hold someone because it was thought they could pose a danger or threat to society. To override the Act, they must present that no set of circumstances existed where the Act would be valid. The defendants presented grounds they believed invalidated the Act’s ability to permit pretrial detention for dangerous individuals. They stated that consistent with the Court of Appeals conclusion, the Act exceeds limits placed on the Federal Government by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Further, they contend the Act contravenes Eighth Amendment proscription against excessive bail. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
ISSUE:
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, does pretrial detention violate and individuals rights when the detention is based on the possible dangerousness of the defendant?
HOLDING:
No. It is not invalid under the Due Process Clause, …show more content…
I do not believe Salerno had a good case and the decision for pretrial detention was correct. Based on the wiretaps, the defendants were both violent and were no strangers to conspiracies for cover ups and murders. The claim that the Act was invalid based on the fifth and eighth amendments was easily voided by the Court. The lack of bail does not mean excessive bail, and while i think that is used as a loophole, it makes sense. No one is guaranteed bail, and everyone who isn't given bail has the opportunity to fight it. The interest of the public I believe is much more important than an individuals rights. If there is evidence that a defendant is dangerous, like the recorded conversations between the defendants, they do not need to be out on bail before trials. Not only could they make a run for it, but they could intimidate witnesses and ruin evidence. It is in the best interest of the public and the case that they be held without bail pending