From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Blackwell

United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee
Nov 12, 2021
3:19-cr-65-TAV-DCP-20 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2021)

Opinion

3:19-cr-65-TAV-DCP-20

11-12-2021

United States v. Darron D. Blackwell


PART II- SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR DETENTION

In consideration of releasing Defendant pending trial, the Court has weighed the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3142(g) and finds that the arguments presented at the detention hearing, as well as the Amended Pretrial Services Report (“PSR”) compiled by the United States Probation Office, establishes by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant is a danger to the community for the reasons set forth below.

At the outset, the Court notes that Defendant is charged with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 400 grams or More of Fentanyl, and One Kilogram or More of Heroin in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), and with Distribution of a Quantity of Fentanyl and Heroin with Death Resulting in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(C). Due to the crimes charged, a rebuttable presumption applies “that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community[.]” 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3)(B). In this respect, the Indictment provides probable cause to believe that Defendant has committed an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801-904, and thus the rebuttable presumption is applicable. United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985) (holding that the indictment establishes probable cause for purposes of the rebuttable presumption). This presumption places the burden of production with the Defendant, while the Government retains the burden of persuasion. Stone, 608 F.3d at 945. To satisfy his burden of production, the defendant must present at least some evidence that he is not a danger or a flight risk. Id. Even when the defendant meets the burden of production, the Court must continue to weigh the presumption that detention is appropriate along with the other factors, because “the presumption reflects Congress's substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.” Id.

Defendant argued throughout the hearing that release is necessary because he is currently being detained six hours away from his attorney, and with his trial coming up in the next three months, he needs to be able to communicate more efficiently with counsel. Furthermore, Defendant is still presumed innocent at this stage but has been detained for approximately twenty-nine (29) months pending the resolution of this matter. Here, the Court notes that during the detention hearing, Defendant proffered that he would be able to reside with his brother, Mr. Fess Parker, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Defendant explained that Mr. Parker was not being offered as a Third-Party Custodian. Mr. Parker is currently out on State probation and suffers from unspecified health issues. Upon the Court inquiring if any other persons resided with Mr. Parker, Defendant confirmed that one other individual lives in the residence, who is also on probation. Defendant proffered that Mr. Parker and the mother of his child, Ms. Jannifer Ford, would ensure that Defendant complied with any release conditions were the Court to order he be released, and that they both would be comfortable with promptly reporting any violations of release conditions by Defendant. Defendant stated he would agree to any appropriate conditions this Court would deem necessary were he to be released. The Court notes that both Defendant's brother and Ms. Ford appeared at the detention hearing to support.

The Court encourages defense counsel to inquire with the United States Marshals Service about the possibility of relocating Defendant closer to Knoxville and his attorney, especially as the trial date approaches. The Government acknowledged the difficulties inherent in the Defendant being detained far away from his attorney and offered any assistance it could provide to help move Defendant closer.

This proffered evidence, however, arguably has not overcome the burden of production with respect to the danger he poses to the community. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 449 F.Supp.3d 668, 673 (E.D. Ky. 2020) (finding defendant failed to overcome presumption with respect to risk of danger where he merely proffered that if released, he could stay with his cousin, agreed to submit to substance abuse treatment and drug testing, and had strong family ties to the area); United States v. Johnson, No. CR 5:19-177-DCR, 2019 WL 7040618, at *3 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 20, 2019) (finding the defendant had not overcame the presumption by proffering that he could reside with his grandmother and she would report if he violated his conditions); United States v. Holden, No. 17-CR-33-JMH-1, 2017 WL 1362684, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 12, 2017) (finding that while the defendant may have presented sufficient evidence to overcome the risk of flight, he had not presented sufficient evidence to overcome the risk of danger because he had not presented “evidence of his good character, other than his father's willingness to house him and his willingness to appear for scheduled court appearances, both of which go more to the idea that he would not flee if released than the idea of danger”); see also United States v. Gwathney-Law, No. 1:15-CR-00030-GNS-1, 2017 WL 2609044, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2017) (concluding that the defendant had failed to overcome the presumption in favor of detention even though he was amenable to a third-party custodian arrangement and GPS monitoring, had a stable residence, substantial ties to the community, minimal criminal history, and strong family support). Defendant's only arguments speaking to his dangerousness were his contentions that much of his violent criminal history is relatively old, and he would be able to reside with his brother.

However, even if the Court were to find that Defendant has overcome the presumption in favor of detention, the Government has still met its burden of persuasion that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community or Defendant's appearance at trial under 18 U.S.C. 3142(g).

First, the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the charged offense. 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(1). Defendant is charged in the Indictment [Doc. 99] with Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 400 grams or More of Fentanyl, and One Kilogram or More of Heroin in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), and with Distribution of a Quantity of Fentanyl and Heroin with Death Resulting in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(C). Even if Defendant has rebutted the applicable presumption, the presumption remains, nonetheless. “The presumption in favor of detention does not vanish simply because a defendant comes forward with evidence to rebut it. Were the presumption to vanish, ‘courts would be giving too little deference to Congress' findings regarding this class.'” United States v. Lattner, 23 F. App'x. 363, 364, (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d. Cir. 1986)), cited in Taylor, 449 F.Supp.3d at 673. In any case, the presumption still exists in favor of detention, even if Defendant has successfully rebutted it. These factors cause the nature and circumstances of the instant offense to weigh heavily in favor of detention.

Second, the weight of the evidence of Defendant's dangerousness weighs in favor of detention. 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(2). In Stone, the Sixth Circuit clarified that the weight of the evidence against the defendant “goes to the weight of the evidence of dangerousness, not the weight of the evidence of the defendant's guilt.” 608 F.3d at 948. Again, the Court notes that Defendant is alleged to have been involved in Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute 400 grams or More of Fentanyl, and One Kilogram or More of Heroin, and with Distribution of a Quantity of Fentanyl and Heroin resulting in death. The Court has considered the PSR and the Parties' arguments and finds that the weight of Defendant's dangerousness weighs heavily in favor of detention.

Next, the Court must consider a host of factors in regard to the history and characteristics of the Defendant. 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(3)(A). As detailed above, Defendant proposes to reside with his brother in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Defendant has been a Knoxville resident since he was seven (7) years old. Defendant has never been married, and he is not currently in a romantic relationship. He has a 16-year-old daughter with Ms. Ford, and they both reportedly reside in Knoxville.

As noted in the PSR, Defendant stated that he was enrolled in GED courses for six months in 2019, prior to his arrest, and he also stated that he would like to continue pursuing his GED. Defendant reported some work history at a fast food restaurant and a lawn service but advised he has mostly been unemployed over the years and has been financially supported by various members of his family. The PSR indicates that Mr. Parker believes Defendant would be able to gain employment with Access Staffing were he to be released.

Defendant has no reported medical problems and is not prescribed any medication. Defendant has no history of mental health treatment. Defendant reported that he began smoking marijuana daily for one year when he was 24-years old and that he voluntarily attended AA/NA classes ten years ago for alcohol addiction.

In considering these factors, the Court may also consider both actual convictions and mere arrests or charges to assess the Defendant's dangerousness, though the latter will typically weigh less heavily in favor of detention. United States v. Tolbert, Nos. 3:09CR56 &3:10CR30, 2017 WL 6003075, at *5 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 4, 2017) (citations omitted). The PSR indicates that Defendant has an extensive criminal history spanning approximately two and a half decades. Defendant has multiple convictions and charges of aggravated and armed robbery, vandalism, battery, assault, failure to appear in court, violations of probation, weapons offenses, evading arrest, domestic violence, among various other things. The Court is particularly concerned with Defendant's extensive and violent criminal history. Defendant has demonstrated a disregard for law enforcement, as evidenced by his prior attempts to evade arrest, failures to appear, and the substantial pattern of violent and dangerous criminal conduct.

Finally, under the pertinent part of 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(4), the Court must consider “the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.” As detailed throughout this opinion, Defendant has exhibited a disregard for law enforcement and a particularly violent and evasive criminal history. Defendant has advanced almost no rationale to show that he does not present a danger to the community. The United States Probation Office has also recommended that Defendant be detained pending the resolution of Defendant's case. Therefore, the Court finds that this factor weighs strongly in favor of detention.

Consequently, the Court finds that the evidence and information provided at the hearing established that Defendant poses a serious risk of danger to the community or another person. The Court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of individuals of the community if Defendant were released on bond. Therefore, Defendant shall be detained pending trial.


Summaries of

United States v. Blackwell

United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee
Nov 12, 2021
3:19-cr-65-TAV-DCP-20 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2021)
Case details for

United States v. Blackwell

Case Details

Full title:United States v. Darron D. Blackwell

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee

Date published: Nov 12, 2021

Citations

3:19-cr-65-TAV-DCP-20 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2021)