Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-cr-00130-JJF Document 9 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 1 of 2


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Edward Brosky Case 5// [ A/I
Defendant O
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ofthe defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I——Findings of Fact
Q (1) The defendant is charged with an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(l) and has been convicted of a Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4). A
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum temi of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
*
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (1) was committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a federal, state or local offense.
Q (3) A period of not more than tive years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (1).
Q (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3) establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
safety of (an) other person(s) and the community. I further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
X (1) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
X for which a maximum tenri of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in 18 USC § 2252A .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
X (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding 1 that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(1) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear. F I `”"""""*‘··——-—-—..
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the communit , L E D

{_

_ . lSTRlCT COURT W
_ _ ' ' | U.: { AWARE
Part II-—Wr1tten Statement of Reasons for Detention ~—-——-——-~`....
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and convincing evidence a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant was detained because there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonable assure his
appearance as required and the safety ofthe community . Defendant is charged with child porn offense for which the rebuttable presumption applies.
Defendant has not rebutted that presumption and the evidence against defendant is substantial in support of the offense, which supports the issue
of danger to the community. The charge against defendant is receipt of child pomography. The evidence shows that defendant had such
pornography organized in excruciating detail. In one folder alone there were 90,000 images of pornography of which two-thirds wa child erotica or
pomography. There are two hard drives involved and the initial pomography comes from one file. His wife admittedly was aware of her husband
prediliction and had told him to stop · she knew that he had a collection of child pomography and claims that she knew it was wrong. Despite his
wifc’s requests, defendant continued collecting child ponmography. The evidence shows that defendant received and distributed child pom.
Two computers and 8 hard drives, 10 DLTs and a number of CDs and DVDs contain images of child porn. Defendant sought out websites know for
child pom, as evidenced by printouts and notes for such sites. Defendant collects and maintains complete series of child pomography and
meticulously details what pictures in a series that he has and is missing. Defendant admitted to a preference of age 9 to 10 year old girls. Defendant
lives near St. Edmonds Academy, a children’s grade school and 5 children live on his street. He also has a 3 year old granddaughter and a number of
his pictures of child pom included children younger than 9-10 years old. His present wife is employed full-time. Defendant has no contact with the
children from his first marriage (defendant is 72 years old). He admits to being involved with child porn for at least the last 10 years.
Although defendant has no arrest record, the offense which he faces is a crime of violence; he used groups to obtain his prong he prefers prepubescent
females and he committed the offense in his home which his granddaughter visits. His guideline range is 188 to 235 months.
In light of the nature of the offense and the evidence in suppoit ofthe offense, I find that defendant is a danger to the community for which no
conditions or combination thereof may be imposed to reasonably prevent him from being a danger, particularly in light of defendant refusal or
inability to stop collecting such pomography. Therefore, defendant should be detained.

Case 1 :08-cr-00130-JJF Document 9 Filed 08/15/2008 Page 2 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part III—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe Attomey General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate,
to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a
reasonable opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the
Govemment, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. J n
7
August 12, 2008 - / .-7 V /1. . r ·
Date S ture of Judicial f `
X ary Pat Thynge, Magistrate Judge
Name and Title of Judicial Ojicer
*lnsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 er
seq.); or (c) Section l of Act ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-cr-00130-JJF

Document 9

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-cr-00130-JJF

Document 9

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 2 of 2