Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cr-00198-WYD

Document 51

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case Nos. 01-cr-00198-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID LEYDEN, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION

This matter was before the Court for preliminary and detention hearing in connection with a supervised release violation on January 8, 2007. Assistant United States Attorney Linda Kaufman represented the government, and Matthew Golla represented the Defendant. The Defendant contested detention. Probation officer Michael Wilson testified at the hearing. The Court has concluded, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant, and has found by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the safety of the community, based on the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 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; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant is to be afforded reasonable opportunity to consult confidentially with defense counsel; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon order of this Court or on request of an attorney for the United States of America, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with this proceeding. DATED and ENTERED this 8st day of January, 2007. By the Court: S/Michael E. Hegarty Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:01-cr-00198-WYD

Document 51

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

United States v. David Leyden Case Nos. 01-cr-00198-WYD FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, and REASONS FOR ORDER OF DETENTION 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' presence for court proceedings; or (b) there s 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. 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, or if the Defendant is charged with a crime of violence, 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; the weight of the evidence against the person; the history and characteristics of the person, including ­ (A) the person' character, physical and mental condition, family ties, s 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 completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State or local law; and

(2) (3)

(B)

(4)

the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person' release. s

1

Case 1:01-cr-00198-WYD

Document 51

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 3 of 3

In addition, these matters involve an allegation of supervised release violation, under which the Court applies the customary standards in order to determine whether detention is appropriate pending the Defendant' appearance before a United States District Judge. s The Court has taken judicial notice of the Court' file and the Petition on Supervised s Release and has considered the evidence produced during the hearing. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following: First, the Defendant waived a preliminary hearing. Probable cause exists to sustain the charges identified in the Petition which has been issued against Defendant. Second, I find from the Petition and evidence that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Defendant presents a risk of flight because of (1) Defendant was on supervised release at the time he allegedly committed the instant offense; (2) Defendant has demonstrated a repeated history of deception in reporting to his probation officer, including forging documents sent to the probation office; and (3) Defendant has a conviction for escape. Third, I find from the Petition that, by clear and convincing evidence, the Defendant presents a risk of danger to the community because (1) Defendant was on supervised release at the time he allegedly committed the instant offense; (2) the offenses alleged in the Petition demonstrate repeated violations of the law or conditions of release, including a prohibition of applying for employment with printing companies; submitting false information to obtain financial benefit (to automobile dealers and mortgage lenders; attempting to obtain credit despite a prohibition in his conditions for release; and (3) obtaining a weapon while a fugitive. As a result, after considering all of these factors, I conclude there is a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the Defendant' appearance for court proceedings. I further conclude that Defendant is a danger to s the public as established by clear and convincing evidence, and that there are no conditions under which I could release him and ensure the safety of the community.

2