New judge, new lawyers, new bond hearing. Judge Marra did the right thing here and reversed the
detention order by the magistrate judge.
From the Palm Beach Post:
North Palm Beach ophthalmologist
Salomon Melgen will be allowed to post bond and leave jail pending his
trial on charges that he bilked Medicare out of $105 million, a federal
judge decided Friday.
But the wealthy 61-year-old physician won’t
be released before a hearing Monday for U.S. Magistrate James Hopkins to
set the size of the bond. U.S. prosecutors are asking that he be
required to pay $20 million to secure his release from the federal
detention center in Miami.
While leaving that task up to Hopkins,
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra said Friday he was putting conditions
in place to help reduce prosecutors’ fears that Melgen would flee to his
native Dominican Republic or seek refuge elsewhere on the globe.
Melgen,
who has been held in custody without bond since his April arrest on
charges that he falsely diagnosed and treated hundreds of patients for
macular degeneration to illegally inflate his Medicare billings, will be
held on house arrest with electronic monitoring once he has posted
bond, Marra ruled. But, he said, Melgen won’t be staying at his $2.3
million waterfront home in Captain’s Key near Juno Beach.
“Defendant
shall not reside at a location adjacent to or with access to a
waterway,” he said in the four-page ruling. Melgen will also will be
stripped of any ability to use his boat or private jet.
Marra also
ordered the doctor to provide a written declaration from Dominican
government leaders, pledging that they won’t block his extradition
should he seek safe harbor in his homeland.
...“The court
concludes that nature and notoriety of the charges (Melgen) is facing in
New Jersey, and the fact that he is a co-defendant with a United States
Senator, makes it unlikely that any attempt to flee would be
successful,” he wrote. “Great diplomatic and political pressure would be
brought to bear on any country that might consider shielding (Melgen)
from extradition.”
In addition, he said, Melgen’s wife, son and
daughter will be required to pledge their assets to guarantee his
return. The possibility that he would leave his family “financially
devastated” should curb any desire to escape prosecution, Marra wrote.
Melgen,
he said, has had months, if not years, to flee. For at least two years,
he has been under investigation for health-care fraud and for his
relationship with Menendez. Weeks before he was alerted by prosecutors
in New Jersey that his indictment there was imminent, he traveled to the
Dominican Republic for a wedding and returned, Menchel said.
“Certainly,” Marra wrote, “if (Melgen) intended to flee, he had his chances.”
I'm not sure I understand sending it back for a determination by the magistrate judge to set the actual bond amount, but I am sure that the new defense team is thrilled that their client is getting out.
Meantime, check out
this article in the Washington Post about sentencing. What has happened to our system?
And in breaking news, the Supreme Court this morning
granted cert in
Sila Luis v. United States, Howard Srebnick's follow up case to Kaley. This time he paired up with brother Scott Srebnick.
Here is the 11th Circuit unpublished opinion, which affirmed Judge Huck. The question will address whether the pretrial restraint of forfeitable substitute assets needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendment.
Early coverage from t
he AP:
The Supreme Court
agreed Monday to decide whether the government can put a hold on
untainted money and property that a criminal defendant needs to hire a
lawyer.
The justices said that they will
review the case of Sila Luis of Miami-Dade County, Florida, who has been
indicted on fraud charges involving $45 million in allegedly improper
Medicare payments. On the same day Luis was indicted in 2012, federal
prosecutors froze her assets.
Luis said the
freeze includes money with no ties to the charges against her and that
she has a constitutional right to use the funds to hire a lawyer to
mount a defense. Lower courts ruled against her.
...The
new case goes to whether untainted money can be frozen when the
defendant needs it to hire a lawyer. The Justice Department said the
assets can be frozen even if they are untainted. In this case, the
government said it sought to freeze substitute assets that would be
forfeited after a conviction because Luis already has spent the
ill-gotten gains on luxury items and travel.