U.S. v. Alonso

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Ingram

    449 N.J. Super. 94 (App. Div. 2017)   Cited 8 times
    Discussing standards for commitment hearings under Sexually Violent Predator Act and probation violation hearings

    ng the issue have also followed the reasoning in Gaviria and permitted the government to proceed by proffer. SeeUnited States v. Whitman , 514 F.Supp. 2d 101, 102 n.1 (D. Me. 2007) (rejecting the defendant's argument that only he had a right to submit evidence at the detention hearing by proffer); United States v. Cabrera–Ortigoza , 196 F.R.D. 571, 574 (S.D. Cal. 2000) (noting "there is no requirement of live testimony by the government at a detention hearing" and holding that amendments to the federal rules requiring the production of witness statements "do not invalidate the use of proffers at a detention hearing"); United States v. Ward , 63 F.Supp. 2d 1203, 1210 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (noting that "both the Government and the defendant may proceed by proffer or hearsay" at a pretrial detention hearing), aff'd , 237 Fed.Appx. 289 (9th Cir. 2007) ; United States v. Alston , 899 F.Supp. 1, 3 n.3 (D.D.C. 1995) (judicial officer has discretion to permit the government to proceed by proffer); United States v. Alonso , 832 F.Supp. 503, 505 (D. Puerto Rico 1993) (same). As the overwhelming amount of federal precedent demonstrates, pretrial detention is constitutionally permissible upon a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as required by Gerstein . Permitting the government to establish probable cause by proffer and hearsay is consistent with the Federal Act and does not violate due process.