No. 20-5913

Bradley M. Cox v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-10-05
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bail-reform-act constitutional-interpretation constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-standards factors-for-detention presumption-of-innocence pretrial-detention release-conditions witness-testimony
Latest Conference: 2020-11-06
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. When the rebuttable presumption of detention exists how much or what quality of evidence is sufficient to rebut it?

2. Is the presumption of innocence being honored in determining detention?

a. What balance can be struck between the circumstances and weight of the evidence for the pending changes and the presumption of innocence?

b. How should different factors and reasons for detention be influenced by the presumption of innocence?

3. Are the 18 USCS 3142(g) factors being considered correctly?

a. How are the factors to be weighed: for against detention or in relation to risks of nonappearance and dangerousness?

4. Are release conditions being correctly considered in order to mitigate the risks of flight and dangerousness?

a. When presented with specific conditions should the court be required to explain how those conditions fail to reasonably assure the person's appearance and community safety?

b. Can the court assume a person will violate release conditions when there is no history of violating conditions while on pretrial release previously?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the lower courts used the provisions of the Bail Reform Act in a manner contrary to the constitutional right to bail?

Docket Entries

2020-11-09
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/6/2020.
2020-10-15
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2020)

Attorneys

Bradley M. Cox
Bradley M. Cox — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent