Whether a district court judge's arbitrary time limitation on a detention hearing violates a defendant's due process rights to a full and fair hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142

No question identified. : into the Act, 1e, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), which this Court relied on to uphold the validity of the Act against a facial due process challenge in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). Because a two judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court without any explanation as to the reasoning for its decision when there has been such a clear disregard for the plain language of the Act and this Court’s decision in Salerno by the district court, Pappas respectfully requests that Your Honor give this matter some attention via a brief look at what Pappas submits herewith. If Your Honor does so, Pappas humbly and respectfully submits that Your Honor would agree that it is appropriate to remand to the Second Circuit with instructions that it order that Pappas be released on the same standard conditions of release as his codefendants. REASONS WHY THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED Pappas had a detention hearing in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on April 3, 2023 before Magistrate Judge Robert Spector. Magistrate Judge Spector ordered that Pappas be detained finding him both a risk of flight and a danger to the community. (App. A, at 3-5).1 Per 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) Pappas moved to revoke the magistrate’s detention order, (App. A, at 5-6), and on June 7, 2023 District Judge Omar Williams held a hearing. But, Judge Williams limited the hearing to 30 minutes, which Pappas objected to on the basis that the time limitation would prevent him from calling the two law enforcement witnesses, and one lay witness, to refute certain facts relied on by the magistrate and to establish additional favorable facts relevant to the matters of flight and dangerousness. Judge Williams refused to accommodate Pappas in any way despite Pappas offering some compromises, and Pappas objected. (App. A, at 6-7). 1 Cites preceded by “App.” are to each of the appendices annexed hereto. 2 Pappas then presented a very pointed argument and at the conclusion of the same pointed out that his argument took the entire 30 minutes allotted by Judge Williams and again objected to not being able to call the witnesses who were present in court. Judge Williams commended Pappas on presenting a focused argument, but the court did not grant any additional time for Pappas to present witnesses. (App. A, at 7-8). After reading what Pappas objected to as a decision reflecting prejudgment of the matter of bail prepared prior to the hearing, (App. A, at 9-12), Pappas again noted his objection to not being permitted to call the witnesses as the decision read by Judge Williams indeed reflected that what Pappas submitted as an offer of proof as to what the witnesses would have testified about favorably to Pappas, ended up being the precise subjects the court relied on to deny bail. (App. A, at 12). The relevance of the witnesses Pappas wanted to call is thus reflected by the decision itself, and notably, neither the government nor the court ever disputed the relevance of the witnesses Pappas identified or the offer of proof he made as to what they would have testified about. Moreover, the decision did not identify why the conditions of release proposed by Pappas would not “reasonably” assure his appearance and the safety of the community because the pre-hearing prepared decision did not account for the creative combination of conditions Pappas proposed during the hearing. Pappas fairly argued in the Second Circuit that the district court’s decision violated the specific due process written into and required by the Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) that provides a right to call witnesses, which due process this Court relied on in Sa/erno to save the Act from wholesale invalidation on due process grounds. (App. A, at 13-27). The government opposed in a pleading that was wrought with inaccurate factual and legal positions, inaccurate citations to authority, and inaccurate claims as to the holding in Salerno, (App