Opinion
Case No. 17-CR-00136-WJM
07-14-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID McNEIL, Defendant.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION
This matter is before the court for detention hearing on July 14, 2017. The court has taken judicial notice of the court's file. In addition, the court has considered the proffers by the government and defendant.
In order to sustain a motion for detention, the government must establish that (a) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the defendant's presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community. The former element must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while the latter requires proof by clear and convincing evidence.
If there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of over 10 years and is an offense prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community.
The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), directs the court to consider the following factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community:
(1) [t]he nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including -
(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.
The government is requesting detention in this case. In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the entire court file, and have considered the proffer submitted by the government and defense counsel and the arguments of counsel. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following:
First, the defendant has been charged in the Indictment as follows:
COUNT ONE 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) and 846 Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack), a Schedule II controlled substance.
COUNT TEN 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. §2- Distribution and Possession with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack), a Schedule II controlled substance, and aiding and abetting the same.
Second, based upon the Indictment, I find probable cause exists as to the above listed crimes.
Third, I find that the defendant is not contesting detention at this time. Defendant is a flight risk.
In light of these facts, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Defendant is a flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure his presence in court. Accordingly, I order that the defendant be detained without bond.
Done this 14th day of July 2017.
BY THE COURT
S/ Michael J. Watanabe
Michael J. Watanabe
U.S. Magistrate Judge