Opinion
No. 3:07-CR-122.
October 5, 2007
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter came before the undersigned on October 1, 2006 for a scheduled detention hearing. Assistant United States Attorney Brownlow Marsh was present representing the government. Attorney Paula Voss was present representing Defendant Christopher Muckle, who was also present.
In the Court's oral ruling, a complete review and analysis of the parties' positions, issues, and facts were stated. That specific and detailed oral ruling is attached hereto and made a part of this Order as if stated herein verbatim.
For the reasons stated therein, I find, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, that (1) the government has not met the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that this defendant is a flight risk and a risk not to appear as required if released, and (2) the government has met the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant Muckle's release would pose a danger to the community. Furthermore, the Court finds that there are no conditions or combination of conditions of release that would reasonably assure the Court that Defendant Muckle would appear as ordered and not pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant, Christopher Muckle, be detained. Defendant will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his designated representative for confinement in a correction facility separate to the extent practicable from persons awaiting sentencing or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. Upon order of this Court or a Court of the United States or upon request of the attorney for the government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver Defendant to the United States Marshals for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a Court proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On the 1st day of October, 2007, the above-styled cause came on for hearing in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, before the Honorable C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge presiding.
(At the conclusion of the proof and arguments of Counsel, the Judge rendered the following Opinion.)
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please come to order and be seated.
THE COURT: All right. I have reviewed this matter under the 3142(g) factors as I'm required to do. Let me state initially, my analysis was rather brief with regard to the risk of flight. I find there is no evidence of a risk of flight in this case. A short, brief run from the officers under the circumstances of that evening would not in my mind constitute a danger of nonappearance at Court.
The other issue and the one the Court has spent the most time with is regard to the danger issue. The Court looked, as I mentioned, to the 3142(g) factors. The first of those is the nature and circumstances of the offense charged and whether it involved narcotic drugs. Obviously, in this case, it does. And, consequently, under the analysis of that factor, that argues in favor of detention.
The second factor is the weight of the evidence against the Defendant. In the ordinary case, I'm presented with an indictment which provides probable cause to believe the Defendant is guilty. But at the same time, I have a presumption of innocence. Often when we take some proof, that tends to move the scales one way or the other. But in this case, I just find that that's a wash and I don't find that it argues in favor of either side.
With regard to the history and characteristics, the third factor, there are two subsets of those factors. The first are the A factors. And I find that those factors that include his character, his physical and mental condition, his family ties, employment, financial resources, his length of residence, and communities all argue in favor of his release. I find that the history and characteristics factors that involve his past conduct and his criminal history argue in favor of detention. The other subfactor is his history of drug and alcohol abuse. There doesn't appear to be any indication that he has used alcohol, but the Court does note that he continued — has and continues to use marijuana a couple of times a week ever since he was seventeen, up to and including an hour before he was arrested, and he used cocaine approximately ten days prior thereto, all again while he was on bond pending appeal. With regard to his appearances at Court proceedings, those argue in favor of his release.
Now, the numerical number of factors argue in favor of the Defendant's release. The problem for the Defendant is that virtually all of those are factors that go to the question of flight and nonappearance; that is, his entrenchment in the community and the likelihood that he would remain. I've already found that he is not a flight risk. The only couple of those subfactors that relate to danger to the community or other persons all argue in favor of his detention.
The other factor, the 3(B) factor requires the Court to look at whether or not at the time of the current offense, the Defendant was on release or bond pending trial or appeal. Well, in this case, clearly the Defendant was on a bond pending appeal from the underlying State conviction. So, that argues in favor of detention.
And, finally, the last factor is the nature and seriousness of the danger to persons or the community posed by his release. This is always a difficult factor to assess. But in this case, given the Defendant's previous involvement in a violent crime, a home invasion involving young children and guns to heads, given the testimony regarding threats to kill someone in this case, even if to some extent, they might be deemed idle threats, and given the involvement of drugs in this case and the continued willingness to be around people who deal drugs and use drugs, the Court finds that is an extremely dangerous combination. And, so, the nature and the seriousness of the danger is severe. And that argues in favor of detention.
Accordingly, the only factors arguing in favor of release are with regard to flight and appearance and all the factors related to danger to the community or safety of others argue in favor of detention. And, accordingly, I find by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant is a danger to the community and/or the safety of other persons in the community, including, but not limited to, whoever he thinks may be responsible for the drugs or his incarceration. And the Court finds that there are no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure me that the safety of the community would be protected by his release on those conditions.
Accordingly, I'm going to find in this particular case that Mr. Muckle will remain detained until the time of trial.
Anything further in this the matter?
MR. MARSH: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further from the Defendant, Ms. Voss?
MS. VOSS: No, sir, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The Court will stand in recess pending the next hearing.
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise. This Honorable Court is now in recess.
(End of proceedings in this matter.)