A Dukes County Superior Court judge declined to release on personal recognizance two Brazilian nationals accused of child rape at the Edgartown courthouse on Friday, citing a high risk of flight and active federal immigration detainers. Instead, a high cash bail was set for each of the defendants.
Jair Fernandes Jr. Deoliveira, 25, and Ana Beatriz Dasilva Sousa, 25, were indicted by a grand jury in March on charges that include aggravated rape of a child with force, kidnapping, multiple counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and intimidation of a witness, juror, or court official. The trial is scheduled for April.
At the courthouse on Friday, Superior Court Judge Maureen Hogan denied a joint request by defense attorney Rob Moriarty, representing Deoliveira, and defense attorney Cass Luskin, representing Sousa. The defense attorneys requested their clients be released on personal recognizance with conditions, but Hogan highlighted that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have detainers on both defendants due to their undocumented immigrant status.
Attorneys Moriarty and Luskin said the case against their clients grows weaker with every new piece of evidence, but Hogan said the defendants have minimal ties to Martha’s Vineyard and face potential penalties severe enough to incentivize flight.
“They are from Brazil not the U.S. They do have family here on Martha’s Vineyard, but they are not from here. I know they don’t have any criminal records here but they were only here for a couple months,” said Hogan. “Then there is the issue of the third party, the federal government and ICE. ICE has detainers against them because they are here illegally, therefore no non-financial conditions will assure that they appear to answer for trial because ICE will deport them.”
Luskin and Moriarty argued that there are a lot of inconsistencies in the alleged victims’ statements.
“Everyday that goes by, this case is getting weaker, and every day that goes by, my client remains in custody,” said Luskin. “Certainly these are serious allegations, and at every stage, it gets harder and harder for the Commonwealth to prove.”
Judge Hogan ultimately set a bail at $20,000 cash for each defendant. If Deoliveira and Sousa make bail, they will be released on conditions.
“I’m aware that the strength of the case may be getting weaker, and therefore, I will set the bail I am going to set without prejudice,” said Hogan in the courthouse on Friday.
As of Tuesday, Deoliveira and Sousa have not posted bail. If they do make bail, they will have conditions to be fitted with GPS, have no contact with children under the age of 18, and no contact with the alleged victim.
Since indictments were handed down in March, Deoliveira has been in custody at the Dukes County Jail and House of Correction in Edgartown, and Sousa is being held at the Barnstable County Correctional Facility. Deoliveira and Sousa are scheduled for a status review hearing in superior court at Edgartown courthouse on Feb. 18, the final trial conference is scheduled April 6, and the first day of the jury trial is scheduled April 13.
Not to nitpick but your headline inaccurately states the Court denied release. But in fact, the article says the Judge is allowing release upon payment of $20K cash bail.
Appropriate detention. BUT, why and how are they in this Country and what purpose do they have for being on Martha’s Vineyard. Is that an inappropriate question?
Regardless of its appropriateness your question isn’t relevant. Judge wants to insure that the defendants are available for trial. It’s not more complicated than that.
Scott,
I think the distinction matters. You’re right that the judge’s role is narrowly to ensure the defendants appear for trial — that’s what the bail decision addresses.
But the article itself makes immigration status central to that determination, quoting the judge on ICE detainers and the risk of deportation affecting trial availability. Given that, it’s reasonable for readers to ask how immigration status factors into a serious criminal case on the Island.
Those questions may not drive the legal ruling, but they do arise naturally from the facts presented.
What is your purpose for being on Martha’s Vineyard
it’s a nice place?
One correction, I think the journalist is not aware that setting bail “without prejudice” is not a formulation of tolerance that he may think, “without prejudice” here is a legal term that means it cannot be appealed. It might have gotten by the editor.
Bad hombres
how many potential child rapists is an acceptable number to allow as part of unregulated mass migration into the country?
As many as it takes to create a blue vote majority.
Clearly, none is the acceptable answer, but I counter your logic by asking how many potential child rapist clergy members are acceptable to allow?
Also, 93% victims of child sexual abuse are victimized by people they know or are related to.
Here’s some info from RAIIN, the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network: https://rainn.org/facts-statistics-the-scope-of-the-problem/statistics-perpetrators-of-sexual-violence/
“Of sexual abuse cases reported to law enforcement, 93% of juvenile victims knew the perpetrator: 59% were acquaintances, 34% were family members, and only 7% were strangers to the victim.”
I doubt the words “Pillars of the Community” will be applied to these individuals anytime soon.
“…indicted by a grand jury in March on charges that include aggravated rape of a child with force, kidnapping, multiple counts of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and intimidation of a witness, juror, or court official.” And out on a $20,000 bail. Which means put up $2000 and you are out on the street again. Consider the charges. Then consider the hundreds of Americans who simply walked through open doors at the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, took selfies and left – and spent years in jail without any bail.