Where the appellate court has determined that the trial court’s findings of underlying historical facts and the consequent factual determination of risk flight are not clearly erroneous and the appellate court therefore accepts them, an appellate court is entitled to apply a broader standard of review in determining the extent to which the facts regarding risk of flight as found by the trial court have significance on the constitutional issue of whether continued detention violates due process limitations[i].

The first step in the two-step pretrial detention inquiry is to determine whether there is a substantial risk that the defendant will not appear at trial.  The court must consider several factors when determining whether the defendant is a flight risk.  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3142(g), these factors include:

• whether the nature and circumstances of the offense are indicative of a flight risk;
• the weight of the evidence against the defendant in this regard; and
• whether the history and characteristics of the defendant, including mental condition, family ties, employment, community ties, and past conduct demonstrate a risk of flight[ii].

[i] United States v. Gonzales Claudio, 806 F.2d 334 (2d Cir. Conn. 1986)

[ii] United States v. Stenger, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (S.D. Iowa 2008)