This post from late last year noted this self-righteous NY Times Magazine piece in which Andrew Meier decried the Russian government’s unjust prosecution and treatment of former Yukos chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Meanwhile, the Times and most of the rest of the mainstream media have largely ignored the United States Government’s unconscionable treatment of R. Allen Stanford, who is still awaiting trial in downtown Houston’s Federal Detention Center. Stanford’s current legal team — which includes Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz — has filed another motion seeking Stanford’s release, this time on Constitutional grounds.
The deprivation of due process and other Constitutional arguments contained in Stanford’s latest motion are interesting, but what is even more compelling is the description of what the government has done to Stanford while he is presumed to be innocent of the charges asserted against him:
Mr. Stanford, a man who is presumed to be innocent, is being, and has been, subjected to substantial and undeniable punishment long before the trial of his case has even begun. He has been physically assaulted; he has suffered significant medical injury and psychological debilitation; he was held in solitary confinement two separate times for a total of 40 days; he has been subjected to 335 days of pretrial incarceration as of May 18, 2010; and before his scheduled trial concludes, he will predictably serve another nonspeculative 439 days.
Pivotally, he has, and will continue to have his constitutional rights compromised, including his fundamental right to assist counsel in the preparation of his defense, to personally review even a small fraction of the evidence that is material to his prosecution, to locate exculpatory evidence, and to have his core cognitive faculties undiminished by unnecessary conditions of confinement in a high-security prison which, in a myriad of ways . . . have prevented and will prevent him from preparing for trial. . . . [T]he conditions of confinement to which Mr. Stanford has been subjected have been and continue to be manifestly punitive. [. . .]
On June 18, 2009, when Mr. Stanford surrendered to authorities, he was a healthy 59 year-old man, with no substantial physical or mental health issues. Now, nearly one year in detention later, Mr. Stanford’s pretrial incarceration has reduced him to a wreck of a man: he has suffered potentially life-impairing illnesses; he has been so savagely beaten that he has lost all feeling in the right side of his face and has lost near field vision in his right eye. The major injuries from his assault while in prison required reconstructive surgery under general anesthesia and was performed while he was under restraint.
Rather than placed in medical isolation or the general population to recover, immediately post-operation, Mr. Stanford was placed in the maximum security Special Housing Unit (“SHU”) area of the prison where he remained detained in solitary confinement for roughly 23 days, and denied all outside human contact with the exception of his attorneys; extreme measures which are generally reserved for only the most violent of convicted criminals.
Mr. Stanford has experienced, according to the Declarations attached hereto, a precipitate, severe, and ongoing deterioration of his mental and emotional health caused by the conditions of his confinement. Mr. Stanford has, moreover, been denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, to assist counsel in the preparation of his defense, and has been for the entire 335 days of his ongoing critical pretrial period deprived of the requisite confidentiality of his discussions with his attorneys by enforced institutional review of every document which his attorneys wished to discuss with him during their meetings.
Trial of this case is not scheduled to begin until January 24, 2011, and is expected to last six months, bringing the total, non-speculative, duration of pretrial detention to a minimum of 774 days; well over two full years without a determination that he is guilty of any crime.
And just to make sure that Stanford will never be of any meaningful assistance to his defense counsel, get a load of the routine that Stanford faces each day of his expected six-month trial if he continues to be incarcerated during the trial:
Mr. Stanford’s inability to assist counsel during trial will be magnified by the reality of the system for bringing detained defendants to court, which forces defendants to undergo procedures which result in elapsed time of 14-17 hours between wake-up in the morning and return to cell in the evening. The physically and mentally exhausting and degrading procedures which Mr. Stanford would be forced to endure day in and day out during the six month trial if he remains incarcerated — procedures which leave insufficient time for sleep and virtually no time for additional preparation — are roughly as follows:
The inmates are awakened at around 4:00 to 4:30 AM. A body search is done before leaving the cell.
They are then taken to a receiving area where they have to strip naked, go through another body search, and then given a set of green clothes.
The inmates are then placed in a concrete holding cell where they may sit for 2 to 3 hours. GEO guards come into the holding cell where they shackle the inmates’ hands to a chain around their waist and shackle the ankles.
After they are shackled, the inmates are taken down to the first floor and placed in a van. After about a 30 minute wait, they are driven to the U.S. Marshal’s office at the Federal Courthouse.
The inmates are then searched by the U.S. Marshals and placed in a steel cell where they wait until they are called and taken to their hearing. Mr. Stanford stated that he goes to the hearing with his shackles in place.
After the hearing, the inmates are taken back to the steel holding cell and they remain there until everyone is done with their hearing.
By the time all the hearings are done it can be anywhere from 5:00 to 7:00 PM. At that time, the inmates are taken to the van and driven back to the FDC.
At the FDC, the inmates strip naked, undergo a body search, and change back into their regular jail garb.
The inmates remain in the holding cell while a counselor spends 5 minutes with each inmate asking what happened at their hearing, whether they feel suicidal, etc. After everyone is interviewed, the inmates are taken back to their cells somewhere around 7:00 to 9:30 PM.
For years, we watched as an out-of-control federal task force – egged on by a vacuous media members – rode roughshod over local citizens’ Constitutional protections. Now, before our eyes, the presumption of innocence has been eviscerated in the Stanford case with nary a peep of protest other than from Stanford’
s attorneys and a few bloggers.
"When the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? . . .[D]o you really thing you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"
At what point does making the same argument after being heard by the Court and having had the decision of the Court heard on appeal become excessive? We understand the argument His Royal Highnes has offered. That argument has been considered and rejected. More than once. It is settled law.
I can appreciate that being in federal detention is unpleasant. I further understand that being in federal detention has an effect on an individual. That being said, we don’t release federal prisoners simply because they find the accomodations offered in federal detention beneath their station in life.
What Stanford hasn’t demonstrated is how his treatment while in federal detention, however unpleasant, is different from that of other prisoners being held in pre-trial detention. Is the argument you, and Mr. Stanford, are making that federal pre-trial detention is in itself a violation of the humen rights of each and every detainee? Are you claiming that the United States is essentially running a gulag under the name of federal pre-trial detention?
Mr. Stanford has (repeatedly) been determined to be a flight risk. While he may disagree, his opinion doesn’t carry any weight in the debate. I understand that you are aserting that the government is essentially corrupt and is conspiring with the judiciary to intentionally deprive Mr. Stanford of his Constitutional rights, but you offer no real evidence of ill motive or corrupt intent.
It is no secret that I am no fan of His Royal Highness. It is also no secret that I firmly believe (with good reason and clear evidence) that the federal judiciary does, in fact, ignore the Constitutional rights of individuals and decides matters before them in a manner outside the rule of law. Appellate courts know this and allow federal judges to issue rulings outside the rule of law. Our legal system needs reform, but will not be reformed in our lifetimes.
Mr. Stanford is in a bad position. What I don’t see is how his treatment is different from others deemed to have been a flight risk and held in federal pre-trial detention.
CM, the problem with your argument is that your premise is wrong.
As the motion (and the two previous motions before this one) explain, the government has never been required to provide any meaningful evidence that Stanford is a flight risk (previous examples of avoiding domestic legal proceedings; refusal to turnover passport; the means by which to overcome U.S. Marshall’s monitoring, previous public statements showing intent to flee, etc).
Rather, both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit have given the prosecution a free pass on meeting its substantial burden of establishing that pre-trial detention of a defendant accused of a non-violent crime is necessary. All the prosecution has been required to “prove” to date is that Stanford is (was) wealthy and that he had dual U.S. and Antiguan citizenship.
This does not mean, as you assert that I suggested, that there is a conspiracy between the DOJ and the federal judiciary to deprive Stanford of his Constitutional rights. It does mean, however, that the judiciary — for whatever reason — has not held the DOJ to its substantial burden of proving that Stanford is a flight risk.
Beyond that, your argument that Stanford is being treated the same as every other defendant in pre-trial detention is wrong. By my count, Stanford has already been in at least three different prison institutions while in pre-trial detention. That is not normal. Because of the nature of his alleged crime, he will be forced to spend far longer in pre-trial detention than other defendants. Finally, due to the nature of the offenses alleged against him, Stanford’s restricted participation in his defense is far more damaging to his case than virtually any other federal pre-trial detainee, whose lawyers can prepare a defense without need of the defendant reviewing reams of documents or providing background on key transactions.
Finally, as for your gulag observation, I do think — as I’ve pointed out in numerous posts over the years — that the condition of most of our prisons in the U.S. is shameful. But that’s a different issue than Stanford’s pre-trial detention, and you are correct that at least Stanford is not being held in any different shameful facility than any other pre-trial detainee.
Whether or not Stanford’s attorneys believe that prosecutors have met their burden to establish His Royal Highness is a flight risk, the individual responsible for considering the matter, Judge Hittner, believes the prosecutors have. This matter has been argued repeatedly and should be considered settled for now.
Allen Stanford isn’t being held in detention “because of the nature of his alleged crime” as you assert. He is being held because he has been determined to be a “serious flight risk.” Your statement should read “Because he has been determined to be a serious flight risk, he will be forced to spend far longer in pre-trial detention than other defendants.” It doesn’t sound so bad when stated in those terms. At least not to me.
If His Royal Highness is convicted and lives long enough for the appeals process to evolve, the Supremes will unquestionably be asked to consider whether the conditions of HRH’s pre-trial detention violated his right to fairly participate in his defense. Our judicial system has ways to deal with the issues being raised by His Royal Highness’ attorneys. The sysyem does not, however, provide for a settled matter to be repeatedly reargued by attorneys simply because they don’t like the outcome.
Allen’s pre-trial detantion is a settled matter and his attorneys should be admonished for wasting the Court’s time. I hope when this latest motion is considered by the 5th Circuit on appeal, they offer some words for Sir Allen’s latest attorneys.
CM, I have found that when you start from the presumption that a defendant is guilty of a crime, it’s much easier to come to the conclusion that he is guilty.
The fact of the matter is that there is precious little — and perhaps no — precedent for a defendant in a case such as Stanford’s being deemed a flight risk and held in pre-trial detention under the circumstances that he has endured.
Likewise, there is no precedent for a defendant being deemed a flight risk on as flimsy a basis as the prosecution has propounded in Stanford’s case.
That Stanford’s treatment is comparable to that of the Russian government’s treatment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a stark testament to just how far the treasured liberties of our nation have been compromised.