Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :08-mj-00038-U NA Document 7 Filed O2/20/2008 Page 1 of 2
AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDE OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Lamette Stevenson Case [\/\
Defendant I
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, l8 U.S.C. § 3 I42(t), 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 (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in l8 U.S.C. § 3 I42(f)(I) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense ifa circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed that is
Q a crime ofviolence as detined in IS U.S.C. § 3 I 56(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum term ofiniprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
>l<
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted oftwo 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 Eve years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe 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 tind that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
(I) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term of imprisonment often 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 Ending I that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
(I) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
(2) There is a serious risk that the defendant will endanger the safety of another person or the community. r*‘"_" ‘i , I _ ‘ ·
. I [ ij L'

Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention ·`·‘ i_.;l;|l_i_i. { `
I tTnd that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by clear and cohvincing i ‘ `'·‘i a tpt·epoi·i-‘“ " I
derance ofthe evidence: Defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, but contested detention on the charge ofpossession ofa hrearm by
a convicted felon in violation of I8 USC §§ 922(g) & 924.
Nature ofthe offense: The offense is considered a crime of violence and a serious offense.
Strength ofthe Evidence: Although defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing, he argued that the weapon found in the vehicle at the
drivcr’s foot area ws not his, but his mother who is also a convicted felon and not allowed to possess a weapon. How defendant’s arrest occurred,
was that defendant was speeding to the hospital to obtain medical treatment for 2 bullet wounds. The passenger and driver’s window were broke as
though his vehicle had been shot at. After exiting his vehicle, police notice the weapon on the tloorboard ofthe vehicle. l\J light ofit location, and
the condition ofthe vehicle, suggest that defendant was aware ofthe gun. Weapon was fully loaded (7) rounds. Although defense argued this
suggested that defendant was unaware ofthe weapon, it also suggests that defendant was aware but was shot before he could use it. There is no
explanation why his mother would have allegedly put the weapon in the ear rather than keeping it in her residence (defendant and his mother live
together, defendant claim that although his mother is not incapacitated, she does need assistance which indicates that defe.idant’s explanation
regarding the weapon may be a complete fabrication.
Defendant’s characteristics/background: Defendant refused an interview without the presence of counsel. Therefore, some history is limited and
most is unverined coming from defendant at the time ofthe hearing. He has been employed at Just Desserts for about 4 months. He is in need of
further medical care for his wounds, including removal ofa bullet from his amn. His past convictions incluez 2002 possession ofa deadly weapon by
a person prohibited and possession of MJ. He was found in VOP within 4 months of his conviction and again 2 other times in 2003. He is charged
with possession of Ml which is pending and a capias was issued for his FTA. In May 2006, he was convicted of possession with intent to deliver
MJ, was VOP in November 2006 and placed in a halfway house, transferred to the Plummer Center in April 2007 and released to begin probation in
November 2007. At the time ofthis incident, he was on state probation. His conduct shows a history of repeated violations of supervisory
conditions. His residence does not have a functioning telephone so EM is not available. Further, in light ofdefendant’s story, he cannot reside with
his mother, the only residence proposed. In addition to the charges noted above, defendant has 6 convictions ofresisting arrest. He clearly faces

Case 1 :08-mj-00038-U NA Document 7 Filed O2/20/2008 Page 2 of 2
ees AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
incarceration if convicted ofthe present offense. As a result there are no conditions or combination thereof that will reasonably assure dcfendant’s
appearance as required and the safety ofthe community.
Part III-—Directi0ns Regarding Detention
The defendant is committed to the custody ofthe 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. 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
Government, the person in charge ofthe corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. /9
February 20: 2008 - . t
Date Signature 0f./ud! { t" r
Mary Pat Tliynge, Fw gstrate Judge
.-Vame and Title 0fJudieia/ Ojicer
*Insert as applicable: (a) Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.); (b) Controlled Substances Import and Expon Act (21 U.S.C. § 951 et
seq.); or (c) Section l ofAct ofSept. 15, 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:08-mj-00038-UNA

Document 7

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-mj-00038-UNA

Document 7

Filed 02/20/2008

Page 2 of 2