Epstein Secrets

ge as continuing to create the historial presumption rinstdeten- tion *1033 (United States Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85, 94 (3d Cir.1 9)), in 1972 Fed.R.App. ("Rule 9(c) was adopted ex- pressly (1972 Advisory Committee Notes to that Rule): to allocate to the defendant the burden of establishing that h

ent status from presumed innocence and release on bail prior thereto. The statute recognizes the different status. The defendant in United States' Zannino, 761 F.2d 52 (1st Cir.1985), was admitted C 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx

n under the prior Bail Reform Act of 1966, bail terms were "subject to review when changed circumstances require that the release be reappraised." Zannino, supra, at 55. The Court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3146(e), repealed by18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), which reads in part: A judicial officer ordering the release

ose of delay; the defendant bore the burden of showing he would not flee and was not a danger to any person or the community. See also former Fed.R.App.P. 9(c). The Act changed the criteria for release on bail pending appeal and placed the burden on the convicted defendant to prove that he meets

px?utid=%7bFEDF5709-3AEA-4F74-8619-... 4/10/2008 EFTA00191689 Page 1 of 10 w estlaw 761 F.2d 52 761 F.2d 52 (Cite as: 761 F.2d 52) H U.S. II. Zannino C.A. (Mass.),1985. United States Court of Appeals,First Cir- cuit. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Ilario M.A. ZANNINO, Defe

nd six others. The charges related to murders, gambling, and other illegal acts. When first brought be- fore the magistrate on September 20, 1983, Zannino was ordered held without bail on the grounds that no conditions of pretrial release would reasonably assure his ap- pearance at trial. Eventually,

Club, 145 F.3d 114, 117 (2d Cir.1998); see United States Crispo, 306 F.3d 71, 86 (2d Cir. 002) (applying this rule to a criminal appeal); Fed. R.App. P. 28(b). VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECT [44] Fell contends that even if none of the alleged errors warrants reversal, the cu- mulative effect of the gov

government has neither argued for a narrow waiver nor identified any particular document to which such a waive! might extend. See United States . Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 990) (explaining that arguments not made in • a party's bnefs need not be considered). 120] Viewed against this backdro