Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion To Revoke Detention Order
Motion To Revoke Detention Order
Defendants.
________________________________________/
respectfully moves for pretrial release. There are conditions that can be put in place
to reasonably assure that Dr. Nagarwala will appear for all proceedings and assure
the safety of the community. Dr. Nagarwala respectfully requests that this Court
revoke the detention order of April 17, 2017 and release Dr. Nagarwala subject to
assure the appearance of Dr. Nagarwala before this Court and assure the safety of
the community.
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 2 of 21 Pg ID 604
Respectfully submitted,
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 3 of 21 Pg ID 605
Defendants.
________________________________________/
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
case, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, M.D. respectfully seeks pretrial release. Moreover,
because there are conditions that will reasonably assure her appearance and ensure
the safety of other persons and the community, such relief is warranted. 18 U.S.C.
3142(b).
1
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 4 of 21 Pg ID 606
INTRODUCTION
citizen, as she was born in the Washington D.C. area. She has absolutely no
criminal history and has lived in the United State her entire life. In fact, Dr.
Nagarwala has never lived abroad. Dr. Nagarwala attended college at the
graduated top in her class. After medical school, Dr. Nagarwala moved to
Michigan and has resided in Michigan since 1997. She was employed as an
emergency room physician at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, however, due to the
and prior to her detention, lived in Northville with her two youngest children.
Moiz Nagarwala works as an engineer for a local company. Dr. Nagarwalas two
Dr. Nagarwalas mother in law resides with her family in their Northville home,
and both of Dr. Nagarwalas parents live between the Nagarwala home in
Michigan and their home in Maryland, traveling back and forth every few weeks.
Aside from Dr. Nagarwalas two daughters in boarding school, all of Dr.
Nagarwalas close family lives in the United States and mostly in Michigan.
2
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 5 of 21 Pg ID 607
count Indictment with the following: Count One, Conspiracy to Commit Female
1512(c)(2), (k); and Count Eight, False Statement to Federal Officer, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
information that Dr. Nagarwala was performing FGM in the Eastern District of
Michigan. Swanson April 12, 2017 Aff., at 10. The Complaint states that Dr.
and that Dr. Nagarwala is a member of the Community. Id. at 11. The
3
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 6 of 21 Pg ID 608
with two families from Minnesota, both of whom had seven-year-old daughters,
and that arrangements were made to have both mothers bring their daughters to
the FBI. Id. at 15, 17. As per the Complaint, both girls told the interviewer that
they traveled to Michigan and went to a doctors office. Id. Both girls identified
Dr. Nagarwala as the doctor seen in Michigan. Id. Allegedly, MN-V-1 told the
forensic interviewer Dr. Nagarwala pinched her on the place [where] she goes
pee, and MN-V-2 reported that she got a shot on her upper right thigh, that it
hurt, and that it made her scream. Id. The parents of MN-V-2 confirmed to local
Minnesota Child Protective Services that they took their daughter to Detroit to see
examination on both MN-V-1 and MN-V-2. Id. at 16, 19. The Complaint
indicates that Special Agent Swanson spoke with the doctor and was made aware
that the doctors preliminary findings included MN-V-1s genitals were not normal
4
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 7 of 21 Pg ID 609
in appearance, that MN-V-1s labia minora had been altered or removed, and that
her clitoral hood was also abnormal in appearance. Id. at 16. With respect to
MN-V-2, Special Agent Swanson states in his affidavit that the doctors
preliminary findings indicate that MN-V-2s clitoral hood has a small incision and
that there is small tear to the labia minora. Id. at 19. It should be noted that in
that surveillance video revealed each child was only in the clinic for approximately
seventeen minutes and was able to walk out of the clinic on their own after the
procedure. Dr. Nagarwala has continuously stated that she was not engaged in
FGM procedures and has remained firm that the procedure she did do did not
an HSI special agent and Michigan child protective services personnel. Id. at 23.
As alleged in the criminal complaint, Dr. Nagarwala told the special agent that she
knew FGM was illegal in the United States, that she had no knowledge of FGM
being performed by anyone in her community, that she had never performed FGM
on any minor children, and that she was not involved in any FGM procedures. Id.
During this same interview, Dr. Nagarwala made the special agent and the child
protective services worker aware that she had a trip planned to Nairobi, Kenya and
that she was scheduled to depart on April 12, 2017. On April 12, 2017, Dr.
5
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 8 of 21 Pg ID 610
hearing on April 17, 2017, the magistrate judge ordered Dr. Nagarwala to be
Since Dr. Nagarwalas Detention Hearing on April 17, 2017, several things
have transpired. On April 21, 2017, Dr. Fahkruddin Attar and Dr. Farida Attar
were arrested and detained. On April 26, 2017, the three were indicted by grand
jury. On April 26, 2017, the Attars were detained pending trial. The investigation
indicating they may be indicted. On June 7, 2017, the Attars were released by this
On June 21, 2017, a Superseding Indictment was issued by the grand jury,
adding on Defendants Tahera Shafiq, Farida Arif and Fatema Dahodwala and
making very vague allegations regarding four alleged Michigan victims. Despite
the fact that this case has been pending since April of 2017, Undersigned Counsel
has received very little discovery. Undersigned Counsel filed a Motion that was
regarding the allegations from even the initial Indictment. This case will
undoubtedly require several motions regarding discovery and the lack thereof.
1
On April 26, 2017, Dr. Nagarwala was charged via Indictment with Conspiracy to Obstruct an
6
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 9 of 21 Pg ID 611
FGM has never been prosecuted before in the United States. As such, and based
on the addition of several defendants and the expectation of several more, this case
will be complex and require time to litigate all of the complicated issues, many of
which are of first impression. As such, Dr. Nagarwala files this instant Motion
seeking pretrial release and requests pretrial release conditions similar to the Attars
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3141(a) gives "judicial officers"
to and including the trial stage. Under 18 U.S.C. 3142 (The Bail Reform Act or
the Act), a judicial officer shall order that, pending trial, the Defendant be (1)
detained. 18 U.S.C. 3142(a). Under the Act, the judicial officer may detain a
person pending trial only if, after a detention hearing held pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
7
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 10 of 21 Pg ID 612
conditions [set forth under 18 U.S.C. 3142(b) or (c)] will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the
Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) cautioned that [i]n our society liberty is the norm,
and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. Id. at
755. For this reason, the defendant may be detained only if the judicial officer
finds by (1) clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is a danger to the
community, or (2) a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendant poses a risk
of flight. See, 18 U.S.C. 3142(f); United States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910,
916 (11th Cir. 1990). The default position of the law is that the defendant should
be released pending trial. United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010).
The default is modified, however, when a judicial officer finds that there is
probable cause to believe that a defendant committed one of the crimes listed in
8
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 11 of 21 Pg ID 613
government retains the burden of persuasion. Stone, 608 F.3d at 945, citing
United Stated v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v.
Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 764 (7th Cir. 1985). A defendant satisfies his burden of
production when he com[es] forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger
to the community or a risk of flight. Id., citing Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436.
least some evidence. Id., citing United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355
(10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cr.
1991) ([A] defendant must introduce some evidence contrary to the presumed fact
U.S.C. 3142 applies, given that Dr. Nagarwala is charged with transportation
U.S.C. 2243(a), (e). See 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3)(E). Nevertheless, given that the
presumption only shifts to the defendant the burden of production to come forward
with evidence suggesting that he or she is not a societal danger or flight risk, the
clear and convincing evidence that no set of conditions will assure the safety of the
9
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 12 of 21 Pg ID 614
burden is to prove that no conditions of release can assure that the defendant will
appear and to assure the safety of the community. Stone, 608 F.3d at 946.
that will reasonably assure the appearance of the [Defendant] as required and the
safety of any other person and the community, the judicial officer is compelled to
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether
the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal
crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance,
firearm, explosive, or destructive device;
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person
was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial,
sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under
Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person of the community
that would be posed by the persons release.2
2 18 U.S.C. 3142(g).
10
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 13 of 21 Pg ID 615
Id. at 946. Notably, consideration of these factors shall not be construed to modify
In determining whether the Government has met its burden of persuasion, the
Court must consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
The alleged offenses at issue in this case stem from conduct related to a centuries-
old religious practice. The presumption for detention of Dr. Nagarwala is triggered
must also consider all the special features of the case that take it outside of the
congressional paradigm that favors detention. Id. at 945-46. This case is not
representative of the sort of conduct that falls within the parameters of the statute,
given that a review of congressional findings for the statute indicate concerns
about prostitution, sex trafficking, and child pornography, none of which occurred
in this case. Dr. Nagarwala has not denied performing a religious rite of passage
11
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 14 of 21 Pg ID 616
that is sacred to the Dawoodi Bohra, and the centuries-old religious practice most
certainly does not fall within the ambit of the statute. The Governments
should be noted when evaluating the nature and circumstances of the offenses
charged.
including a case that involves a serious risk that [the defendant] will flee[.] 18
preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is a flight risk[.] United States
(S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2008) (quoting United States v Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 fn. 4
(8th Cir. 1985)). In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or
without trial is the carefully limited exception. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 755.
At the detention hearing, the Government argued that Dr. Nagarwala posed a
risk of flight given that she has significant resources, a motive to flee, international
connections, and was arrested at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport where she was
12
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 15 of 21 Pg ID 617
Detention Hearing at pp. 11, 15. The Governments argument, however, amounts
to a de facto presumption that all citizens charged with a crime who have financial
means and/or family abroad should be detained. That is not the law. Rather, the
evidence specific to a given defendant, that there is a serious risk that [the
With regard to Dr. Nagarwalas April 12, 2017 arrest at the airport, at Dr.
Nagarwalas children attend a boarding school in Nairobi and that Dr. Nagarwala
had planned to visit her children for a grand opening of the schools new campus.
Transcript of April 17, 2017 Detention Hearing at p. 19. Dr. Nagarwala was
scheduled to return on April 24, 2017 according to Exhibit A, which was admitted
at the Detention Hearing. Further, following her trip to Nairobi, Dr. Nagarwala
shift as a doctor, which was confirmed by Exhibit B at the hearing. Id. at 20.
From Fort Lauderdale, Dr. Nagarwala planned to travel to India for a family
wedding and the flight information and wedding invitation showing the wedding
was on May 5th and May 6th were provided to the Court as Exhibits C and D. Id.
The itinerary also confirms Dr. Nagarwalas plans to return to the United States on
May 15th. After that trip, Dr. Nagarwala had a round trip planned to Houston,
13
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 16 of 21 Pg ID 618
which was admitted as Exhibit E, so that she could celebrate her daughters
engagement with family. Id. It was clear that Dr. Nagarwala had every intention
and planned to return to Michigan and all of these plans had been planned months
in advance of her learning about the investigation on April 10, 2017 when
Homeland Security came to her home. Moreover, the Government conceded that
Dr. Nagarwalas trip had been planned before the events of April 10, 2017. Id. at
12.
return to the United States after her previously planned trip to Nairobi. Moreover,
when an HSI Special Agent interviewed her at her home on April 10, 2017, Dr.
Nagarwala made the Government aware of her trip to Nairobi by explicitly telling
travel plans is the opposite of what one would expect from a defendant who
serious risk of flight. Further, when informed that Dr. Nagarwala had plans to
leave the United States, neither the special agent nor the child protective services
worker told Dr. Nagarwala or suggested to Dr. Nagarwala that she should postpone
Truong v. United States, 439 U.S. 1326, 1329-30 (1978) (Brennan, J. sitting as
14
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 17 of 21 Pg ID 619
Circuit Justice). Dr. Nagarwalas actions demonstrate that there are conditions that
will reasonably assure her appearance. 18 U.S.C. 3142(b). At the time of her
arrest, Dr. Nagarwalas passport was already seized, and her immediate family are
also willing to voluntarily surrender their passports to assure the Court there is no
risk of flight. Further, the passports for Dr. Nagarwalas two minor children who
remain in the home were surrendered in the child protective proceedings pending
in Wayne County.
Clear and convincing evidence means proof that the particular defendant
actually poses a danger, not that the defendant in theory poses a danger. United
States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991). Moreover, conditions for release
need not guarantee safety, but need only to reasonably assure it. 18 U.S.C.
3142(e).
In the present case, the Government argued that Dr. Nagarwala, if released,
would pose a danger to the community because the defendant knew before her
arrest that this was an illegal procedure, but she proceeded to do it anyway and the
only difference now is that she has been caught and that she faces time in prison.
Transcript of April 17, 2017 Detention Hearing at p. 15. The Government also
argued that the danger to the victims in the community and to the community
overall includes also the danger that the defendant would continue to attempt to
15
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 18 of 21 Pg ID 620
obstruct justice, that she or others will place pressure on victims in the community
to recant their statements or to lie to the police or that she will pressure other
The statutorily mandated progression from one choice to the next is critical:
a judicial officer cannot determine that a detention hearing and the possible
imposition of pretrial detention is appropriate merely by determining that
release on personal recognizance will not reasonably assure the
defendants appearance at trial or will endanger the community. The
judicial officer must also consider whether one of the codified conditions or
any combination of the conditions will reasonably assure the defendants
appearance and the safety of the community. The wide range of restrictions
available ensures, as Congress intended, that very few defendants will be
subject to pretrial detention.
United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 890-91 (8th Cir. 1985) (reversing detention
risk. A risk to the community requires further analysis: the determination of what
community.
warrants detention. United States v. Demmler, 523 F.Supp.2d 677, 683 (S.D. Ohio
2007). In Demmler, the Court stated, [T]he Court will not assume that just
16
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 19 of 21 Pg ID 621
because Demmler has been charged with witness tampering and obstruction of
justice, he is likely to commit these same offenses again during the course of these
which this Court has already declined to do. Id. The court noted:
[T]he threshold for detaining a defendant pre-trial, even one who has
engaged in threatening behavior, is not easily satisfied. In United States v.
Brannon, No. 00-2037, 2000 WL 235237, 2000 U.S.App. LEXIS 3234 (10th
Cir. March 2, 2000) (unpublished), for example, the Tenth Circuit affirmed
an order releasing the defendant pre-trial, even though the defendant was
charged with using the mail to threaten a federal judge, had a history of
mental and emotional disorders and of making veiled or oblique threats,
and his family testified in favor of detaining him. In United States v. Traitz,
807 F.2d 322 (3d Cir. 1986), the defendants were charged with racketeering,
embezzlement, and extortion. Government tapes recorded the defendants
physically abusing their victims and threatening them. The Third Circuit
affirmed the district courts release order, concluding that the district court
did not err in holding that conditions of release could be fashioned to prevent
the defendants from posing a danger.
Id.
The Courts inquiry, therefore, must focus on whether by conditions of
release the community can reasonably be assured of its safety. Indeed, if the statute
detention would become the norm rather than the exception because such
The facts of the case undeniably include parents who brought their daughters
to Dr. Nagarwala for a religious procedure. It is fair to say that everyone in the
17
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 20 of 21 Pg ID 622
charged. This case is far different than random attacks of children on the street and
conditions such as house arrest and a tether, the Court could be sure that Dr.
Nagarwala does not leave her home except for Court and legal appointments. Like
the Attars who were also released on bond, Dr. Nagarwala could be prohibited
from having contact with other community members. Dr. Nagarwala would not
have contact with any of the witnesses involved in this instant case except her
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, there are conditions that can be put in place to
reasonably assure that Dr. Nagarwala will appear for all court proceedings and
ensure the safety of the community. Dr. Nagarwala respectfully requests that this
of conditions, that will reasonably assure the appearance of Dr. Nagarwala before
Respectfully submitted,
18
2:17-cr-20274-BAF-DRG Doc # 92 Filed 07/07/17 Pg 21 of 21 Pg ID 623
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 7, 2017, I filed the foregoing document with the Clerk
of the Court through the ECF system, which sill send electronic notification to all
counsel of record.
19