Opinion
2:21-cr-00192-RAJ
12-07-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PAUL VON NAHME, Defendant.
ORDER
The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
THIS MATTER comes before the court on the United States' Motion to Appeal Release Order (Dkt. # 17). The Court has reviewed the United States' motion, the Defendant's opposition, the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services Report, and the audio recording of the detention hearing held before Judge Brian A. Tsuchida on November 30, 2021, during which Judge Tsuchida ordered the Defendant's release on bond. On that same date the Court granted the government's emergency motion to stay release order pending the Court's ruling on the government's appeal. Being fully advised, the Court hereby DENIES the United States' appeal.
The government contends that because the Defendant has pled guilty the Magistrate Judge was required to detain him pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2). The Defendant challenges this assertion and argues that until a District Judge accepts a plea of guilty, a defendant who engages in a plea colloquy before a magistrate judge has not been found guilty, requiring detention, as claimed by the government. The Court has considered the government's argument regarding how this Court is to treat a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. The Court finds persuasive United States v. Yanni, No. CR09-1363, 2010 WL 3522271, and holds that Title 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) does not control the circumstances now before this Court.
The Court further finds that release is appropriate in this case. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142 authorizes release as this Court finds there are conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant and there are conditions that will minimize any danger he poses to the safety of any other person, or the community.
In its appeal the government has identified clearly disturbing online chats. The counter is that there is no evidence before this Court that the statements are true. The Court recognizes the challenging circumstances of the words of the Defendant against the denials by the subject of the statements and her observed demeanor by law enforcement officers. What is compelling is that once released, the Defendant will be restricted to home confinement with monitoring, a no-contact order with his spouse and daughter, and a series of other restrictive conditions on his whereabouts and restrictions on his freedom.
For these reasons, the stay pending appeal is rescinded and the Defendant shall be released subject to each and every condition previously imposed by Magistrate Judge Tsuchida.