Opinion
Case No. 2:10-mj-353.
July 1, 2010
ORDER
This matter came on for hearing this 30th day of June, 2010 upon the Government's Motion for Review and Revocation of Release Order (Doc. # 8) filed on June 22, 2010. At the hearing, the Court heard oral arguments from counsel for the Defendant and counsel for the Government. Testimony was presented. The Court also reviewed the audio recording of the hearing before Magistrate Judge King conducted on June 21, 2010. Based upon the arguments presented, the testimony, and the review of the hearing before Magistrate Judge King, the Court finds the motion to be well taken and GRANTS the same.
The Court conducted a de novo review. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a)(1) the Court revokes the release order of Magistrate Judge King and orders Defendant to be detained without bond pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Court recognizes that a presumption in favor of detention is found at 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Defendant has failed to present sufficient arguments to rebut the presumption in favor of detention.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger that would be posed to the community by the person's release.
Defendant is presently charged with conspiring to possess or attempting to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and knowingly using or carrying and brandishing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. The Government proposes to charge Defendant with at least five additional 18 U.S.C. 924(c) firearm counts which, if Defendant is convicted of those offenses, carries a mandatory minimum sentence in excess of 100 years in prison. Furthermore, the circumstances of the various home style robberies in which Defendant is accused of participating presents a series of heinous, vicious, and premeditated acts that indicate absolutely no regard for the law or the safety of others. This Court has never been faced with such viciousness as allegedly occurred in the crimes that Defendant is accused of committing.
With regard to the weight of the evidence, the Government has cooperating co-conspirators as well as victims who are willing to testify against Defendant. Defendant has admitted to some involvement. Many incriminating pieces of evidence were found at a residence where Defendant was residing including two firearms, evidence linking Defendant to several of the home invasions, and plans for at least one future robbery.
The third factor, the history and characteristics of Defendant, favor Defendant. She has no prior convictions. Defendant is employed. And, Defendant resides, at times, with her mother and Defendant's sixteen year old daughter.
Finally, the Court is required to consider the nature and seriousness of the danger that would be posed to the community by Defendant's release. On one hand, Defendant was originally cooperating with the Government and, in exchange for her cooperation, Defendant was not detained. During this approximately one year period of time Defendant has not been arrested on any new charges and has remained in the Columbus, Ohio area. On the other hand, the Court cannot overlook the violent and depraved nature of the crimes involved when considering the seriousness of the danger that would be posed to the community by Defendant's release. Defendant was allegedly willing to participate in and aid others in the commission of several horrific crimes. Defendant's participation in these crimes evinces a willingness to do anything to achieve her own ends. Such a mind set disturbs the Court and convinces the Court that Defendant poses a serious risk to the public if released.
In summation, Defendant is facing serious charges that provide for a minimum mandatory sentence in excess of 100 years. The fact that a defendant faces a long term of incarceration weighs strongly in favor of finding Defendant to be a flight risk. United States v. Abad, 350 F3d 793 (8th Cir. 2003). The weight of the evidence against Defendant is overwhelming. Critical items of evidence linking Defendant with various crimes will be introduced and Defendant admitted to some involvement. The history and characteristics of Defendant favor release. But, the nature and seriousness of the danger posed to the community if Defendant is released is a risk that this Court is not prepared to accept. Three factors militate against release and only one factor favors release. That one factor is of little value when compared to the other factors involved.
This Court finds that Defendant has not overcome the presumption in favor of detention. Defendant poses a risk of non appearance and an extreme risk of danger to the community if she is released. Defendant's arguments do not persuade this Court that there are any conditions or combinations of conditions that would reasonably assure the safety of the community.
Defendant shall remain in custody without bail pending trial.