Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00167-SLR Document 13 Filed 01/02/2008 Page 1 of 2
.\O 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
District of Delaware
UNITED STATES OF AIVIERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Mark Hoffman Case O-} HG g E
Defendant `
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 31 42(f), a detention hearing has been held. l 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)(1) 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 of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. §3156(a)(4).
Q an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which amaximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
*
V T _ Q a felony that was committed after the defendantihad 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 five years has elapsed since the Q date of conviction Q release ofthe defendant from imprisonment
_ , _for_the offense described in Ending (1). ‘ ` _ _
Q (4) Findings Nos. (1), (2) and (3,1 establish a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure the
safcty of(an) other person(s) and the community. 1 further find that the defendant has not rebutted this presumption.
» Alternative Findings (A) · r ·
_ V _(l) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
for which a maximum term ofimprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
Q under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). A _.
Q _ (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding l that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B) .
X (1.) There is a serious risk that the defendant will not appear.
X (2) There is a serious risk that thc defendant will endanger the safety ofanother person or the community.
Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention E if I
lhnd that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence I a prepona
derance ofthe evidence; Although defendant initially opposed detention, after the court ordered further investigation, defendant withdrew his
objection and did not contest. Defendant is charged with receipt of child pornography, an indulgence he has been feeding for at least the last 5
years. He has not criminal history, but faces a mandatory minimum 5 years for which the rebuttable presumption applies. As a result ofthe Erst
detention hearing, the court considered release only because defendant had employment and strong family support. The court has since learned that
evidence provided by the family was inaccurate (the court is being charitable in its description ofthe representations made to it by familymembers).
Apparently, defendant was holding onto his employment by a thread before these charges arose and since the employer learned ofthe true nature of
the charges, defendant has been terminated from his position. Defendant has two daughter by a prior marriage, one of whom is near orjust into
her teens, and within the age group the defendant admitted as a preference. Evidence against defendant is substantial with not only finding of child
porn websites frequented by defendant, but a library ofchild porn catalogued, categorized and filed. Defendant made significant admissions to
investigators about his propensities and his conduct, which includedioining and paying for child porn websites. For these reasons, the court finds
that there are no conditions or combination thereofthat will reasonable assure defendant’s appearance as required and the safety ofthe community.
I a 3.;. L·· _ 1
l
· I
( l ‘»' `E 9 2038 l A
{ l.......-..-. _.-..-..,___.l .
‘ 1;..5;. last riiti? G-Quai
` L .... . .EL-*ER`*Elil[.i;“‘f`i1E$. --2....

` . Case 1:O7—cr—OO167-SLR Document 13 Filed O1/O2/2008 Page 2 of 2
% AO 472 (Rev. 3/86) Order of Detention Pending Trial
V Part III—Directions Regarding Detention V
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 d ~ . dant to the " • States marshal for the purpose ofan appearance in
connection with a court proceeding. V
January 2: 2008 n __ A ,;
Dam Y "I- tre af./udicin V In--
aty Pat Thyngc, Mag at .udge
rzme and Title ofJudictczl Omcer
*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 ez
seq.); or (c) Section 1 of Act of Sept. 15. 1980 (21 U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:07-cr-00167-SLR

Document 13

Filed 01/02/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00167-SLR

Document 13

Filed 01/02/2008

Page 2 of 2