Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-mj-00065 Document 9 Filed 04/01 /2008 Page 1 of 2
la AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Jermaine Barksdale Case , N`
Defendant
In accordance with the Bail Refonn Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention of the defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—Findings of Fact
Q (l) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS U.S.C. § 3l42(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 eireumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime ofviolence as defined in IS U.S.C. § 3l56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisomnent or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in
I
Q a felony that was comn1itted after the dcfendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in IS U.S.C.
§ 3l42(f)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in finding (I) 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 five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release of the defendant from imprisonment
for the offense described in finding (I). ,
Q (4) Findings Nos. (I), (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 presu.mption.
Alternative Findings (A)
_ (I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in .
Q under IS U.S.C. § 924(c).
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonablyassure
the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community.
Alternative Findings (B) _ _
X (I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the commu n`—"`" T " "", _ -
Defendant is char e with felon in ossession of a firearm in violation of 18 USC · 922 ; and 92 a for whliih • obdble I as found
as a result of a relimin hearin . ` .
’ ¤ ' = ee:
l I U Part II-Writlten Statement of R€i`|S0H$ [0I' D¢¢€Hlj0¤ j;___ Mh QE _
I find that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and con X—a . ¤ t t ·
derance of the evidence: In analyzing the factors in 18 USC § 3 l42(g), the court finds that there are no conditions or combination thereof that will
reasonably assure defendant`s appearance as required and the safety of the community. Therefore, detention is warranted for the following reasons:
Nature of the Offense: The offense falls within the more serious category, defendant, having been convicted of prior felonies was in possession of
a weapon.
Strength of the Evidence: A witness for the government, testified consistent with his afiidavit made in support of the criminal complaint. As a‘
result, he identified defendant as the individual who admitted to and was observed with a firearm.
Characteristics of Defendant: Although defendant is a life long resident of DE and his last employment was for two years between 2004 to
2006, his residence is between his mother’s and his girlf`riend’s home and his criminal history is very problematic. According to defendant, he
would maintain a steady residence by living with his mother. Regarding this criminal history, defendant was convicted of distribution, delivery
or possession of a controlled substance within 300 fi. of a park in April 2002. He was found in VOP for that offense in June 2003 and again in
June 2004. He was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia in May 2003 and in June 2004 which probably resulted in a prior noted VOP,
he was convicted of maintaining a vehicle for keeping a controlled substance. Other companion drug related charges were dismissed for that plea. In
December 2005, he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a non-narcotie schedule I controlled substance amended to possession of MJ.
He elearly has a substance abuse problem admittedly smoking 4 blunts a day and began using MJ since age I2 (defendant is presently age 27).
He has a number of FTAs for Alderrnan’s Court, JP Court 20 and the Superior Court.

Case 1 :08-mj-00065 Document 9 Filed 04/01 /2008 Page 2 of 2
Q AO 472 (Rev. [H86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Part HI—Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the eustody ofthe Attomey General or his designated representative for eonfmement 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 attomey for the
Govemment, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver the defend o the United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in
eonneetion with a court proceeding.
March 31, 2008
Date Signature of ‘ acer
Mary Pat Thyn e, agistrate Judge
Name and T file 0fJudicia.l Ojicer
"lnsert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Export Aet (21 U.S.C. § 951 er
seq.); or (e) Section 1 ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-mj-00065

Document 9

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-mj-00065

Document 9

Filed 04/01/2008

Page 2 of 2