Washington, Dec 7 (NationPress) Ashley J. Tellis, an Indian American expert in foreign policy focusing on US and South Asian relations, appeared in federal court this week to challenge the Justice Department's push for his detention before trial. He argued to the judge that prosecutors have failed to present any legally valid grounds to revisit his release conditions.

In a recent filing, Tellis's legal team asserted that the government’s motion “should be dismissed outright,” contending that federal law mandates prosecutors to disclose information that is both “not known” during the previous hearing and “material” to the detention issue.

“Nothing the government identifies is both -- as the law requires -- new and material to the issue of detention,” his defense stated.

The core of the contention is whether Tellis, who faces a single charge under US statutes for the unlawful retention of national defense information, should remain under strict home confinement or be placed in custody prior to his trial. The accusation is linked to two documents mentioned in the indictment; the defense emphasizes that the case “does not allege or even suggest that Dr. Tellis disseminated the national defense information.”

Tellis has been monitored electronically since October 21, following a joint proposal by prosecutors and defense attorneys regarding his release conditions, which include home confinement, surrender of his passport, and restriction from internet usage.

His legal representatives informed the court that he has “meticulously abided by the conditions ordered by the Court,” and argued that the government's concerns in the latest filing were either previously known or irrelevant.

In their court documents, the defense contended that prosecutors cannot assert dangerousness under the Bail Reform Act, since the statute under which Tellis is charged does not fall within the restricted list that allows such claims.

“The government may argue only risk of flight, not dangerousness,” the filing stated, adding that Tellis's “strong ties to his family, home, and community” counter the assertion that he might flee.

The defense also challenges the government’s characterizations of evidence taken during the October search of Tellis's residence and office, arguing that prosecutors “reasonably could have known” the nature of the materials before the original detention hearing.

They highlight Tellis's cooperation, noting that upon discovering additional hard drives and documents not seized by agents, he “immediately and voluntarily provided” them to the FBI.

Tellis's attorneys assert that the government’s speculative claims about future risk lack support and do not meet the legal criteria for pretrial detention. They caution that placing Tellis in custody would impede his ability to assist in reviewing sensitive documents for trial preparation. “Utilizing his expert view of documents, necessary to the defense, will be extremely difficult if incarcerated,” they stated.

This courtroom struggle unfolds as the case moves towards its next procedural steps. The judge will determine whether prosecutors have fulfilled their obligation to reopen the detention hearing, which requires demonstrating new, material information rather than arguments previously accessible to the government.

Tellis was apprehended on October 11 after agents executed a search warrant at his property in Vienna, Virginia, recovering over a thousand pages of materials marked with classification. Two documents associated with China later became the basis for the single retention charge.

Following an initial hearing, prosecutors consented to strict release conditions, with probation officers reporting “zero violations.” Tellis's extensive career in government and policy analysis, including senior roles at the National Security Council and the State Department, along with his cooperation with investigators, have been highlighted in previous filings as reasons he does not pose a flight risk.