Dr. Vinay Bararia Appeals for Release From Federal Custody
Dr. Vinay Bararia’s legal team has filed a motion to reopen detention hearing and for reconsidertation of detention pending trial.
On October 17, 2012, the court authorized an arrest warrant for Dr. Bararia as the filed petition alleging that Dr. Bararia had prescribed medication containing controlled substances to one of his patients after his privileges had been suspended by the Board of Medical Examiners. On November 7, 2012, the court entered an order revoking Dr. Bararia’s pretrial release and detaining Dr. Bararia pending trial. The basis for the detention order was based on the government argument that Dr. Bararia had continued to practice medicine by prescribing controlled substances in contravention of the Court’s order of conditions.
Dr. Bararia’s legal team has submitted new information which exists now and was not known to the parties at the earlier hearing. The information, as presented, has a material bearing on the issue of whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of Dr. Bararia as required and the safety of the community. Attorneys’ are requesting release based on Dr. Bararia’s pending trial and are arguing that the release is necessary for the preparation of his defense. Additionally, the argument is being made that Dr. Bararia no longer has a medical practice or any patients and has authorized his counsel to surrender irrevocably his medical license.
In November Dr. Bararia sold his medical practice to another physician for $1.00. Dr. Bararis is also commiting to the surrender of his license and to withdrawal of his petition to the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners, thus foregoing his ability to practice medicine entirely. Dr. Bararia has shown to the court that there are reasonable alternatives to detention: house arrest with GPS monitoring, the absolute termination of his medical practice and the irrevocable surrender of his license. Attorneys’ are arguing that the burden of persuation rests with the government to show that these conditions will not reasonably assure the safety of the community. Previously, the court had fairly allowed Dr. Bararia to continue employment in the health care field under the spervision of a practicing physician soa long as Dr. Bararia had nothing to do with the dispensing of controlled substances. His admitted violation, prescribing the male hormone testosterone, had absolutely no similarity to the drug trafficking charges (narcotics) pending against him. The conditions of house arrest and GPS monitoring should fully satisfy the requirements of the Bail Reform Act as there is no likelihood that Dr. Bararia will endanger the community or violate any conditions.
As further grounds for release Dr. Bararia will be able to assist his defence. The discovery process requires meetings with counsel in an effort to fully understand the government’s case. Trial is set on May 21, and motions are due in approximately two months. The filed motion states that Dr. Bararia’s Sixth Amendment rights can be met only if he is released and allowed to work directly and frequently with his counsel.