The federal prosecutor’s office opposed the release of producer Raphy Pina on bail while he waits for the result of the appeal he filed a few weeks ago to reduce his prison sentence.
The position was presented by the federal prosecutor David Bornstein in motions filed simultaneously before the Federal Court in San Juan and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
“There is no reason why the court should reconsider whether he (Pina) should seek bail depending on the appeal, in the first instance, in the district court (…) So it should deny his motions,” Bornstein stated in Boston.
The prosecutor was referring to the fact that the federal appellate forum had already denied his request for bail, indicating that he must first request bail in San Juan.
Pina’s defense then asked Boston for reconsideration, stating that it should resolve the request because going to the district would cause “an unnecessary delay in obtaining a resolution and could result in a denial of bail regardless of the merits.”
He also recalled that Pina was on bail without any type of negative accusation, demonstrating that he did not represent a flight risk or danger to the community.
For his part, the prosecutor maintained in his motion that “there is no reason to doubt that the district court is doing what it should in a timely and appropriate manner.” As he had previously expressed, he emphasized that the petition before Boston must wait for the court in San Juan to resolve the petition before appealing.
Meanwhile, before the Federal Court in San Juan, Bornstein argued that “Pina does not prove that her appeal raises substantial questions” to prevail in her request and that “a favorable decision will result in a reduction of sentence.”
“In summary, the court should also deny Pina bail pending appeal because it does not recognize that he was unsuccessful the last time he requested said remedy, using practically the same arguments and background,” the prosecutor stated.
He also added that “it does not provide the court with any reason why the result should be different this time. He does not challenge the facts or the reasons the court gave last time to conclude that he had not demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that he was not a flight risk. And the only new information he provides for the court’s consideration is a paragraph without citations or corroboration that consists solely of his own opinion. “That is not clear and convincing evidence.”
Previously, Boston did grant Pina’s request to speed up the appeal process. The artistic producer seeks to reduce the sentence of three years and five months that Judge Francisco Besosa maintained, despite the fact that the appellate forum had dismissed one of the two charges for which he was found guilty by a jury in December 2021.