Free Order of Detention - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00430-WDM

Document 14

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case No.: 04-cr-00430-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. CARL E. SCHUMANN, Defendant.

ORDER OF DETENTION THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on January 17, 2006. Present were the following: David Connor, Assistant United States Attorney, Susan Fish, counsel for the defendant, and the defendant. The Court reviewed the Pretrial Services' report and considered the comments of counsel. 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, based upon the attached findings. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney General or their 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 a 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 17th day of January, 2006. By the Court: s/ Craig B. Shaffer Craig B. Shaffer United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:04-cr-00430-WDM

Document 14

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 2 of 4

United States v. Carl E. Schumann Case Number 04-cr-00430-WDM

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. The former element must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while the latter requires proof by clear and convincing evidence. 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, 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

Case 1:04-cr-00430-WDM

Document 14

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 3 of 4

In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the Pretrial Services Report and entire court file, and have considered the comments of defense counsel. In particular, I note that during the detention hearing on January 17, 2006, defense counsel indicated that her client was not opposing the government' request for detention. s Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, I find the following: First the defendant has been charged with multiple violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), Bank Robbery. The grand jury has found that probable cause exists to believe that the alleged offenses were committed by the defendant. Second, I note the Pretrial Services Report indicates that on November 4, 2005, the defendant was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. After considering all of the factors set forth in the Bail Reform Act, the offenses charged in this case, and the information available at the time of the detention hearing, I find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant. In support of that finding, I note the lengthy sentence that could be imposed if the defendant was found guilty of the charged offenses, the defendant' current status as a federal prisoner, and the defendant' decision not to contest the s s government' request for pretrial detention. s

Case 1:04-cr-00430-WDM

Document 14

Filed 01/17/2006

Page 4 of 4