## Facts

- Mark Jessup was charged with a federal drug offense carrying a maximum term of at least ten years under the Controlled Substances Act.
- Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, a judicial officer found probable cause that Jessup committed a qualifying offense, triggering a rebuttable presumption that no release conditions would reasonably assure appearance and community safety.
- A federal magistrate ordered Jessup detained pending trial, concluding he had not rebutted the presumption after considering the statutory factors.
- The district court affirmed the detention order.
- Jessup appealed, challenging both the constitutionality of the statutory presumption and how it was applied.

## Issues

1. Whether the Bail Reform Act’s rebuttable presumption for certain serious drug offenses violates due process or the Eighth Amendment by effectively authorizing detention based on the charge.
2. Whether the presumption shifts only a burden of production to the defendant or also shifts the burden of persuasion, and whether the presumption retains evidentiary weight after rebuttal evidence is produced.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the pretrial detention order.
- The court held the § 3142(e) rebuttable presumption is constitutional as an evidentiary device rationally related to Congress’s findings about flight risk and danger in serious drug cases.
- The court interpreted the presumption to impose only a burden of production on the defendant; the government retains the burden of persuasion for detention.
- The court held that, even after the defendant produces rebuttal evidence, the presumption remains a factor to be weighed with the § 3142(g) considerations.
- The court concluded the magistrate and district court made an individualized determination and did not err in finding no conditions would reasonably assure appearance and community safety.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may create rebuttable presumptions in pretrial detention decisions when the presumption is rationally connected to legislative findings and the defendant has a meaningful opportunity to rebut.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), once probable cause establishes a qualifying offense, the defendant bears a burden of production to offer some evidence countering the presumption; the burden of persuasion remains with the government.
- A rebutted presumption does not vanish; it continues to carry evidentiary weight and must be considered alongside the statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
- The Bail Reform Act prohibits using unaffordable monetary bail as a proxy for detention; detention must rest on statutory findings that no conditions will reasonably assure appearance and community safety.
- Pretrial detention under the Act is regulatory, not punitive, when grounded in individualized findings under the Act’s standards and procedures.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the Bail Reform Act’s rebuttable presumption for major drug offenses and affirmed Jessup’s detention, holding that the presumption shifts only a burden of production, remains an evidentiary factor after rebuttal evidence, and operates within an individualized, factor-based detention determination.


United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1985)