United States of America versus; Sukhvinder Singh; Virinder Singh, Jasbir Sandhu; and Jatinder Singh Ahluwalia

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Review Detention Order

Defendants, Jasbir Sandhu, Sukhvinder Singh, Virinder Singh and Jatinder Singh Ahluwalia are moving the Court to order their release from detention at Orleans Parish Prison,

The pretrial detention of de- fondants on grounds of dangerousness is a violation of their

5th Amendment right to due process. Furthermore, because of its excessive and unreasonable length their detention has degenerated into punishment.

in case concerning an eight (8) month pre-trial detention, the Second Circuit has concluded that “where liberty is protected both ‘substantively and procedurally by the limitations of the Due Process Clause, a total deprivation of liberty cannot validly be accomplished Whenever doing so is a rational means of regulating 10 promote hyena substantial government interest.” United States v, Melendez Carrion, No, 85-1431, slip op. (2d Cir. May 2, 1986),

The 13-14 month detention of defendants is likewise a substantive and procedural violation of their due process guarantees. The incarceration for such an unreason- ably long period, for whatever reason, conflicts with due process rights.

A four (4) month-pre-trial dentin was found to constitute impermissible punishment in United States v. Thereon, 782 F. 2d. 1510 (10th Cir. 1986). There the court found that where the defendant did not delay the four.(4). Month delay was unreasonable. The court further stated that even though “pre-trial detention is permissible when it serves a regulatory rather than a punitive purpose, valid pre-trial detention assumes a punitive character when prolonged significantly. Id. at – 1516.

The defendants have been in- recreated over three times longer than the defendant in Thereon. Because here they also have not delayed the trial, the length of the detention should be considered unreasonable.

In the same fashion, the Third Circuit has held that “at some point due process may require a release from pre-trial detention.” United States v. Accenture, 783 F. 2d, 382, (3rd Cir. 1986). That court went on to say that “in some cases, the evidence admitted at the «detention hearing, evaluated against the background of the duration of the pretrial incarceration and the causes of that duration. May no longer justify detention.” id, Accenture involved less than four months of pre-trial detention

The evidence from the detention hearing in this case, when weighed against the unreasonable length of the detention and the causes, therefore, can no longer justify the detention in Federal custody. Considering the timespan involved by further incarceration on the Federal criminal – charge.

The concurring opinion in Melendez-carrion disdains the argument that if detention is regulatory at the outset that it remains regulatory regardless of the length of detention. There the opinion stated that “lengthy delay can transform what might otherwise be a valid regulatory measure into one that is punitive.”

For whatever reasons the defendants were detained at the outset, these grounds have undeniably degenerated over the 13 months of incarceration into a punitive mea- sure.

Though no distinct delineation exists or needs to exist to determine precisely when  

Constitutional limits are exceeded, “the general requirements of due process compel us to draw that line at some point…  Melendez – Carrion simply put, that line has been undeniably crossed here.

For the foregoing reasons the defendants Jasbir Sandhu. Sukhvinder Singh, Virinder Singh and Jatinder Singh Ahluwalia respectfully submit that their Motion for Release be granted RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Richard B. Stricks – Attomey for Jasbir Singh Sandhu

Joseph Meyer, Jr. – Attorney for Virinder Singh

Ronald J. Rakosky – Attomey for Sukhvinder Singh George R. Simno, III – Attorney

 For jatinder Singh ahluwalia

Article extracted from this publication >> August 1, 1986