Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bell

August 10, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
LYDELL R. BELL, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Conti, District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), defendant Lydell R. Bell ("defendant") filed a motion for revocation of an order of detention pending trial (Doc. No. 22). This court considered defendant's detention pursuant to a de novo review of the record previously before the court and based upon matters raised at a hearing held on July 21, 2006, at which evidence and proffers of evidence were presented. Upon a review of the record, evidence and proffers of evidence presented at the hearing, the pleadings and briefs in this case, the pretrial services report, and the arguments of counsel, this court denied on the record defendant's motion for revocation of the order of detention for reasons set forth on the record and more fully set forth herein.

Facts and Procedural History

Defendant was indicted on May 2, 2006 for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). (Doc. No. 1.) The government filed a motion for an arrest warrant on May 2, 2006 (Doc. No. 6) and the motion was granted (Doc. No. 7). Defendant subsequently was arrested. Defendant made his initial appearance on May 11. 2006. (Doc. No. 8). The government requested detention as to defendant on May 11, 2006. (Doc. No. 9.) A detention hearing was held on May 19, 2006. (Doc. No. 15.) The magistrate judge presiding over the detention hearing ordered defendant detained. (Doc. No. 16.)

Defendant filed the pending motion for revocation of the order of detention (Doc. No. 22) on July 5, 2006. The government filed a response to the motion (Doc. No. 23), defendant filed a response to the government's response (Doc. No. 24), and the government subsequently filed a motion to withdraw portions of its response (Doc. No. 25), noting that in its response the government erroneously argued that there was a rebuttable presumption in favor of detention that applied in this case.

The court held a hearing on the motion on July 21, 2006. Defendant, counsel for defendant, and counsel for the government attended the hearing. At the hearing, counsel for both parties presented evidence and proffers of evidence including, but not limited to, information concerning defendant's history and the circumstances of his arrest on this charge. In particular, evidence included that defendant was on probation for a state charge at the time of the arrest and that defendant had drugs in his possession and was carrying a loaded semiautomatic pistol with seven rounds and one round in the chamber at the time of the arrest.

Standard of Review

The court's standard of review of a magistrate judge's denial of pretrial detention is de novo. United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390, 1394 (3d Cir.1985).

Discussion

The structured system of the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., regarding the release or detention of a defendant before trial seeks to ensure that the interests of the defendant and the public are carefully considered and contemplated before release or detention is ordered. See United States v. Lemos, 876 F.Supp. 58, 59 (D.N.J.1995). The court is charged with determining whether there exists "any condition or combination of conditions set forth in [18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)] that will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community...." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). See also Lemos, 876 F.Supp. at 59 ( "A condition precedent to detention without bail under subsection (e) is that a hearing be held as provided in subsection (f)."). The facts the court relies upon to support a finding that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The government bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) ("The facts the judicial officer uses to support a finding pursuant to subsection (e) that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence"); see also United States v. Suppa, 799 F.2d 115, 119 (3d Cir. 1986) (even in rebuttable presumption cases, the burden of persuasion always remains with the government).

Section 3142(c)(1)(B) of the Bail Reform Act sets forth a nonexclusive list of conditions that a court may impose upon granting a defendant's motion for pretrial release. If no sufficient condition or combination of conditions exists, however, the court may order that a defendant be detained without bail pending trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Section 3142(e) of the Bail Reform Act provides, in pertinent part:

If, after a hearing pursuant to the provisions of subsection (f), . . . the judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of any other person and the community, such judicial officer shall order the detention of the [defendant] before trial.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Section 3142(e) provides that in certain cases enumerated in section 3142(f)(1), including cases involving a "crime of violence," a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. As defendant argued in his motion, and as discussed at the hearing, this case is not a rebuttable presumption case. See United States v. Bowers, 432 F.3d 518, 519 (3d Cir. 2005) (holding that a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is not a crime of violence under the Bail Reform Act).

The court examines four factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18 U.S.C. ยง 4142(g). The four factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person including, 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 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.