Mtn for Reconsideration of Detention Order

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that

1

[t]he hearing may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer,at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was notknown to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on theissue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure theappearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and thecommunity.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA§§VS.§CR. NO. 4:09-342-01§ROBERT ALLEN STANFORD§

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OFDETENTION DUE TO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

TO THE HONORABLE DAVID HITTNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISION:COMES NOW, Robert Allen Stanford, by and through his attorneys of record,Kent A. Schaffer and George McCall Secrest, Jr., and respectively moves thisHonorable Court to reconsider its previously entered order of June 30, 2009committing Mr. Stanford to the custody of the Attorney General or his designatedrepresentative and detaining him pending trial. Due to changed circumstances

1

discussed below, it is not only appropriate to consider the imposition of additionalconditions of release that will serve to reasonably assure his appearance at trial, inaddition, it is also essential that Mr. Stanford be released from custody subject to

Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 172 Filed in TXSD on 12/21/09 Page 1 of 50

Pretrial Services recommended to Magistrate Judge Stacy that a combination of conditions

2

would reasonably assure Mr. Stanford’s appearance at trial and that he be released from custodysubject to conditions of release.2

strict conditions of release in order that he be able to meaningfully participate in hisdefense and receive effective assistance of counsel.

I.PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF DETENTION PROCEEDINGS

On June 25, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy conducted adetention hearing at the government’s request and after hearing testimony andconsidering exhibits proffered by both sides, determined that Mr. Stanford should bereleased from custody pending trial subject to the posting of a $500,000 bond witha $100,000 cash deposit. Other conditions of release were imposed in light of

2

Magistrate Judge Stacy’s finding that Mr. Stanford was a flight risk. (Transcript of Detention Hearing at 207). The government moved for a stay of the release order,which was subsequently granted, and sought from this Court an order revoking therelease order pending trial.On June 29, 2009, this Court conducted a hearing on the government’s motionto revoke the release order, and after considering evidence, which included thetranscript of the June 25, 2009 proceedings before Magistrate Judge Stacy and

Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 172 Filed in TXSD on 12/21/09 Page 2 of 50

It is important to note that at no time has the government contended or has Magistrate Judge

3

Stacy or this Court found that Mr. Stanford’s release from custody would “endanger the safety of anyother person or the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), (c), and (e).

See

the government’sMemorandum in Support of Detention, Dkt. No. 31, filed June 25, 2009; Motion for Stay PendingDistrict Court’s

De Novo

Review of Release Order, Dkt. No. 33, filed June 26, 2009; Motion for Revocation of Release Order, Dkt. No. 45, filed June 29, 2009; and this Court’s Order (reversingMagistrate Judge Stacy’s order releasing Mr. Stanford), Dkt. No. 52, filed June 30, 2009.As the 5 Circuit reasoned, “[b]ecause neither party argues that the fourth § 3142(g) factor,

th

‘the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s release,’ is applicable to Stanford, the district court made no findings on this element. Neither party argues that it should be taken into account. Accordingly, our inquiry need go nofurther.”

United States v. Stanford

, 2009 WL 259136, at 4.3

arguments of counsel, entered an order on June 30, 2009, granting the government’smotion.Previous counsel for Mr. Stanford filed Allen “Stanford’s Motion ToReconsider and/or Reopen the Court’s Detention Order on July 7, 2009,” which wasdenied on July 9, 2009. Thereafter, Mr. Stanford appealed the District Court’sDetention Order and denial of the Motion to Reconsider and/or Reopen the Court’sDetention Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit whichaffirmed this Court’s order on August 24, 2009.

II.RISK OF FLIGHT

The undersigned counsel do not seek to re-litigate the findings by bothMagistrate Judge Stacy and this Court that Mr. Stanford poses a flight risk. While

3

Case 4:09-cr-00342 Document 172 Filed in TXSD on 12/21/09 Page 3 of 50