Opinion
Case No. 04-M-8021-01-DJW.
October 15, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Charges recently were filed against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging Defendant violated conditions of pretrial release previously imposed upon him by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. A hearing was held before this Court on September 9, 2004 to determine the following three issues: (1) whether this Court has jurisdiction to determine whether Defendant should be detained or released pending the final revocation hearing in Texas; (2) whether the evidence presented establishes Defendant's identity; and (3) whether Defendant should be detained or released pending the final revocation hearing. The United States appeared at the hearing through Michael Christensen, and Defendant appeared in person and through counsel Tom Bath.
Jurisdiction
The underlying charges against Defendant in this case are pending in the Northern District of Texas. After being arrested in this jurisdiction on these underlying charges, Defendant appeared in this Court on March 18, 2004 for removal proceedings. Although the United States initially moved for Defendant's pretrial detention, the Government subsequently withdrew its motion on March 31, 2004, and this Court ordered the pretrial release of Defendant subject to Defendant's compliance with numerous specified conditions. After Defendant waived his identity hearing, the cause ultimately was removed to the Northern District of Texas pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 40.
On August 24, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas filed a petition requesting Defendant be arrested to answer charges from Texas that he violated conditions of pretrial release imposed by this Court. As a result of the petition, Defendant was brought before this Court on August 30, 2004 for his initial appearance. At this proceeding, Defendant sought release pending his appearance before a United States District Court Judge in the Northern District of Texas for final revocation hearing. The United States opposed such release, arguing this Court does not have jurisdiction to hold a detention hearing and release Defendant under the circumstances presented.
In sole support of its argument, the Government cites to the case of United States v. Zu Quan Zhu. In that case, Zhu was charged with an offense in the Western District of Pennsylvania at Pittsburgh, appeared before that court and subsequently was released on conditions. The conditions permitted Zhu to reside in Quincy, Massachusetts. When Zhu allegedly violated his conditions of release, the magistrate judge in Pittsburgh issued a warrant for Zhu's arrest. Zhu was arrested in Massachusetts and was brought before a Massachusetts judge. Zhu's counsel requested a detention hearing and release pending the final revocation hearing in Pittsburgh. The Government opposed release, arguing the Massachusetts federal court had no power whatsoever and must immediately issue an Order of Removal directing the United States Marshal to transport Zhu to Pittsburgh. Discussing at length the interplay between 18 U.S.C. § 3148 and amendments to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Zhu court held that it could find no statute or rule to grant it the power to hold a detention hearing for a person who allegedly has violated conditions of release imposed in another jurisdiction.
215 F.R.D. 21 (D. Mass. 2003).
The Court finds the Government's reliance on the Zhu case in its argument is misplaced as the facts set forth in Zhu are distinguishable from the facts presented here. Unlike Zhu, the petition here alleges violation of pretrial release conditions imposed by the undersigned Magistrate Judge, not the judicial officer within the Northern District of Texas issuing the petition. To that end, the statute governing sanctions for violation of a release conditions states
(a) Available sanctions. — A person who has been released under section 3142 of this title, and who has violated a condition of his release, is subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.
(b) Revocation of release. — The attorney for the Government may initiate a proceeding for revocation of an order of release by filing a motion with the district court. A judicial officer may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with violating a condition of release, and the person shall be brought before a judicial officer in the district in which such person's arrest was ordered for a proceeding in accordance with this section. To the extent practicable, a person charged with violating the condition of release that such person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release, shall be brought before the judicial officer who ordered the release and whose order is alleged to have been violated.
218 U.S.C. § 3148(b) (emphasis added).
Because it was the Pittsburgh court, and not the Massachusetts court, that imposed the conditions of release upon Zhu, the Zhu court was unable to rely on this statute for jurisdiction. Here, not only did this Court impose the conditions upon Defendant here, but the Northern District of Texas specifically notes that it is charging Defendant with violating pretrial release conditions imposed by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. For these reasons, and based on the statutory authority provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3148, this Court concludes it has jurisdiction to determine whether Defendant should be detained or released pending the final revocation hearing in Texas.
Identity
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, including the fact that Defendant appeared before the undersigned Magistrate Judge earlier this year, the Court is persuaded that the individual appearing before the Court is the same person named in the petition.
Release
Based upon the statements of the pretrial services officer appearing at the September 9, 2004 hearing, the Court finds the Defendant should be released on the conditions previously imposed pending the final revocation hearing to be held in the Northern District of Texas. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that
Defendant shall next appear in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas at 9:30 a.m. on September 30, 2004 at the United States Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, 15th Floor, Courtroom 1505, Dallas, Texas 75242. It is further ordered that
Defendant shall be released on the conditions previously imposed pending his next appearance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.