Furminger Motion For Bail Pending Appeal
Furminger Motion For Bail Pending Appeal
1
2
3
4
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN FRANCISCO VENUE
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
vs.
14
IAN FURMINGER,
15
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
I.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NO. CR-14-0102-01-CRB
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR BAIL
PENDING APPEAL
COURT: Hon. Charles R. Breyer
INTRODUCTION
20
On February 28, 2014, Mr. Furminger made his initial appearance and was released on a
21
$50,000 unsecured bond with U.S. pretrial release conditions. On December 5, 2014, Mr. Furminger
22
was found guilty by jury trial of two counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343), conspiracy against civil
23
rights (18 U.S.C. 241), and conspiracy to commit theft concerning federally funded program (18
24
U.S.C. 371). On February 23, 2015, this Court sentenced Mr. Furminger to a term of 41 months
25
imprisonment. This Court further ordered that Mr. Furminger surrender to serve his sentence by
26
2:00 p.m. on April 3, 2015, and that any motion for bail pending appeal be filed on or before March
27
28
By this motion Mr. Furminger respectfully requests that this Court permit him to remain out
of custody on the unsecured appearance bond pending appeal. Clear and convincing evidence
establishes that Mr. Furminger is neither a flight risk nor a danger to safety of the community and
the appeal from the judgment will raise substantial questions of fact and law.
II.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
APPLICABLE LAW
Title 18, United States Code section 3143(b)(2) sets forth the circumstances under which a
defendant may remain free on bail while his appeal is pending. The judicial officer must find:
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or
pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under
section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial
question of law or fact likely to result in
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total
of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.
12
13
In United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1985), the Ninth Circuit clarified the
14
meaning of the phrases substantial question of law or fact, and likely to result in reversal [or] an
15
order for a new trial. The Ninth Circuit explained that the term substantial in the first phrase
16
defined the level of merit required in the question presented. Id. at 1280. A question is substantial
17
if it is fairly debatable or fairly doubtful, that is, it is of more substance than would be necessary
18
to a finding that it was not frivolous. Id. at 1283 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
19
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected the notion that an issue must be a close one in order
20
21
The second part of the requirement, that the question be likely to result in a reversal or new
22
trial, concerns only the type of question raised. The district court does not actually assess the
23
likelihood that a reversal will occur in the particular case. Id. at 1280; United States v. Garcia, 340
24
F.3d 1013, 1021 at n. 5 (9th Cir. 2003.) Thus, [t]he defendant . . . need not, under Handy, present
25
an appeal that will likely be successful, only a non-frivolous issue that, if decided in the defendants
26
favor would likely result in reversal or could satisfy one of the other conditions. United States v.
27
28
18 U.S.C. 3142(g) sets out the factors this Court should take into account in determining
-2-
whether there are conditions that will reasonably assure that the defendant will appear when required
and that the defendant will not pose a danger to the community:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
III.
11
A.
12
Mr. Furmingers substantial community ties and his record of appearing in court establish
13
by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk. Mr. Furminger, who is 48 years old, has
14
resided in the Bay Area for most of his life. The only time he lived elsewhere was when he attended
15
college in San Diego and then in Minnesota. Both his parents and his brother currently live in the
16
Bay Area. Mr. Furminger is very close to his parents, who are both elderly and in poor health. Mr.
17
Furmingers father suffers from degenerative discs and urinary tract disorders and his mother suffers
18
from severe dehydration and thyroid issues, which cause her to be hospitalized at least once per
19
week. Mr. Furminger visits his parents regularly to help care for them. He also brings food and
20
helps his father walk and stand. He is their primary caretaker. PIR at 60.
21
Mr. Furminger is the father of two children, ages 9 and 15, who live with their respective
22
mothers in the Bay Area. Prior to his suspension from the police department, Mr. Furminger
23
provided significant financial support to both of his children. He is especially close to his nine-year
24
old son and spends a substantial amount of time with him. PIR at 63, 65. Mr. Furmingers son
25
26
27
coaches youth sports and volunteers at school functions, book drives and as a physical education
28
teacher for his childrens schools, and at fundraisers for crime prevention. PIR at 62.
-3-
Finally, as noted in the PIR, Mr. Furminger has kept all court appearances, complied with
conditions of pretrial release, and is not viewed as a flight risk . . . . The probation officer opined
that Mr. Furminger was a good candidate for voluntary surrender. PIR Sentencing Recommendation
at p. 3. Under the above-described circumstances, there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr.
B.
Mr. Furminger Does Not Pose a Danger to Any Other Person or the
Community.
7
8
Mr. Furmingers conduct while on bail, the nature of his current offense, and the absence of
any prior criminal record establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to
10
others. As noted above, Mr. Furminger has been free on an unsecured appearance bond for more
11
than one year. During this time, his conduct was exemplary and there were no reports of any
12
involvement in criminal activity. In addition, he was not convicted of any crimes of violence or
13
crimes that involved the use of weapons. The crimes for which Mr. Furminger was found guilty
14
were related to his prior employment as a San Francisco police officer. Since he is no longer so
15
employed and will not again be so employed while his appeal is pending, there is no risk of his re-
16
17
Significantly, until the instant office, Mr. Furminger was a highly-regarded police officer,
18
who had worked for the San Francisco Police Department since 1995. He earned numerous medals
19
and awards related to his police work including two medals of valor. He also was promoted to
20
sergeant, saved several lives and excelled as police officer. PIR at 89.
21
22
another factor suggesting he is not a danger to the community. PIR at 72. In the PIR, the probation
23
officer agreed that Mr. Furminger is not viewed as . . . danger to the community. PIR Sentencing
24
25
evidence that the community will not be endangered by Mr. Furminger remaining free on bail while
26
27
28
-4-
C.
The Appeal Is Not for the Purpose of Delay and Raises Substantial Questions
of Law or Fact That Are Likely to Result in a Reversal of the Convictions.
2
3
Mr. Furminger was convicted by a jury after a ten-day trial in which numerous legal and
factual issues were vigorously contested by the defense. It is beyond dispute that the purpose of Mr.
Furmingers appeal is not to cause delay, but to contest the validity of his convictions. Moreover,
at least several of the issues to be raised on appeal involve substantial questions of law or fact that
The district court improperly excluded evidence relevant to the impeachment of two
prosecution witness. Most significantly, the defense was prohibited from introducing evidence that
10
would have impeached the credibility of prosecution witness Reynaldo Vargas. Mr. Vargas was a
11
co-defendant who agreed to cooperate with the government. His testimony was critical to the
12
prosecutions case. The defense sought to impeach Mr. Vargas with evidence that while previously
13
working as a police officer he falsely claimed to have worked a certain amount of overtime and to
14
have not used violence during an arrest. Had the jury been allowed to hear such evidence it is likely
15
that Mr. Vargass testimony incriminating Mr. Furminger would not have been believed.
16
In addition, the district court erred in allowing evidence to be admitted over the objection of
17
the defense. On one such occasion, the defense objected to the admission of text messages sent by
18
Mr. Furminger that constituted irrelevant character evidence and were highly prejudicial.
19
Mr. Furminger repeatedly requested that his trial be severed from that of co-defendant
20
Edmond Robles on the ground that the evidence against Mr. Robles was far greater than that against
21
him. The district court erred in denying the motions, and that error was exacerbated by the fact that
22
the testimony of cooperating government witnesses Vargas focused primarily on Mr. Robless
23
wrongdoings. Mr. Furminger was prejudiced by the spillover effect in the joint trial.
24
Finally, as argued in Mr. Furmingers motion for new trial, the evidence introduced against
25
him was insufficient to support the verdicts. There was little evidence relating to any wrongdoing
26
by Mr. Furminger. The governments case primarily focused on Mr. Robless criminal activity, and
27
Mr. Furmingers convictions could only have been the result of his close association with Mr.
28
The merits of these appellate issues are fairly debatable, and the issues must therefore be
considered substantial. In addition, if the issues are decided in the defendants favor it is likely that
a reversal of the judgment will result. The governments case against the defendant was far from
overwhelming.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Here, Mr. Furminger is not likely to flee, does not pose a danger to any other person or the
community, and will be filing an appeal that raises substantial questions of law or fact that are likely
to result in a reversal of the convictions. Mr. Furminger therefore should be allowed to remain free
on an unsecured appearance bond pending appeal. Indeed, if Mr. Furminger is required to surrender
10
he will likely have to serve a substantial part of his 41-month sentence before an appellate decision
11
12
13
Respectfully submitted,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-