Rules 5 and 40. 5 The factors to be considered by a judicial officer in granting or denying bail, such as the accused's "character, family ties, employment, financial condition, length of residence, community ties" have been described as "best determined by the court in which the person is apprehended if the person happens, as is the case here, to be a resident of the district in which apprehended." U.S. v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 1995) (Noonan, J., dissenting). 6 For example, the prosecutors in the charging district should retain the option of waiting until a defendant arrested in another district first appears before the magistrate judge of the indicting district to move for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 705 (7th Cir. 1986) (<HOLDING>). 7 But even the judicial officers of the
holding that the postconviction court is the sole judge of the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses holding that the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses and the weight of the evidence against the defendant of  3142g1 and 2 are best assessed in the charging district holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence holding that the court of appeals must consider and weigh all of the evidence and may only set aside the finding if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him