## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Raymond J. Patriarca on two RICO counts (18 U.S.C. § 1962) and five Travel Act counts (18 U.S.C. § 1952), with the Travel Act violations alleged as RICO predicate acts.
- The government alleged Patriarca was the former boss of an organized-crime family and argued he posed a danger to the community and a risk of flight.
- A magistrate judge ordered pretrial detention on public-safety grounds without deciding flight risk.
- After extended proceedings, the district court ordered conditional release, finding Patriarca was neither a danger nor a flight risk, citing diminished influence within the organization, strong family and work ties, lack of a prior criminal record, and serious health problems.
- Release conditions included full-time home confinement with electronic monitoring; limited departures for medical needs under attorney supervision; continuous video surveillance of entrances at Patriarca’s expense; unannounced FBI searches; and an agreement to forfeit real estate worth about $4 million if conditions were violated.
- The United States appealed the release order.

## Issues

1. Under the Bail Reform Act, whether the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could reasonably assure community safety, requiring detention pending trial.
2. What standard governs appellate review of a district court’s pretrial release or detention determination.
3. Whether alleged organized-crime leadership, without more, establishes unmanageable dangerousness despite stringent release conditions.

## Decision

- The First Circuit applied “independent review” tempered by deference to the district court’s determinations.
- The court largely affirmed the district court’s conditional release order, concluding the government failed to carry its burden to justify detention based on danger to the community.
- The court accepted the district court’s individualized findings that Patriarca’s practical capacity to direct criminal activity had materially weakened and that unusually strict conditions substantially mitigated risk.
- The court remanded for further proceedings on a single identified concern about the release arrangement, without overturning the overall release determination.

## Legal Principles

- Pretrial detention for dangerousness under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 requires the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure community safety.
- Bail determinations require an individualized assessment; dangerousness cannot be inferred solely from a defendant’s alleged status in an organization absent record-based findings about actual present ability to cause harm.
- Courts must seriously evaluate whether stringent, enforceable conditions can reasonably mitigate risks; detention is not the default where conditions can address safety concerns.
- On appeal, the First Circuit reviews bail decisions under an independent-but-deferential standard: more searching than clear-error or abuse-of-discretion review, but not plenary de novo review, with practical deference to factfinding and credibility determinations.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained a district court’s decision to release an alleged organized-crime leader under exceptionally restrictive conditions because the government did not show, by clear and convincing evidence, that detention was the only means to reasonably assure community safety, while remanding for limited reconsideration of one discrete aspect of the release plan.


United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991)