Free Order of Detention - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00151-SLR Document 25 Filed O1/23/2008 Page 1 of 2
so AO 472 (Rev. 12/(I3) Order of Detention Pending Trial

District of DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V. ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
JOHN E. l\/IANNING, Case Number: 07-l5l-SLR
Dekndnn!
In accordance with the Bail Reform Act, I8 U.S.C. § 3 l42(f), a detention hearing has been held. I conclude that the following facts require the
detention ol` the defendant pending trial in this case.
Part I—·—Findings of Fact
Q (I) The defendant is charged with an offense described in IS U.S.C. § 3l42(f)(l) and has been convicted ofa Q federal offense Q state
or local offense that would have been a federal offense if a circumstance giving rise to federal jurisdiction had existed - that is
Q a crime ofviolence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4).
Q an oft`ense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death.
Q an offense for which a maximum tenn of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in
Q a felony that was committed after the defendant had been convicted of two or more prior federal offenses described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3 l42(t)(l)(A)-(C), or comparable state or local offenses.
Q (2) The offense described in Ending (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 live 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. (1), (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 presumption.
Alternative Findings (A)
Q (1 ) There is probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed an offense
Q for which a maximum term of imprisonment often years or more is prescribed in .
Q undcr1S U,S.C. § 924(c). _
Q (2) The defendant has not rebutted the presumption established by finding I that no condition or combination ofconditions will reasonably assure
the appearance ofthe defendant as required and the safety ofthe community.
Alternative Findings (B)
Q (1) 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 community.
Part II—Written Statement of Reasons for Detention
I lind that the credible testimony and information submitted at the hearing establishes by X clear and convincing evidence lj a prepon-
derance ofthe evidence that
Based on the affidavit of probable cause, the report ofthe Probation Office, and other information provided to the Court during several
hearings concerning the issue of Defendant’s release or detention, the Court finds clear and convincing evidence that no combination of conditions
could reasonably assure the safety ofthe community between now and the time ofthe Defendant’s trial.
_ This case is in an unusual procedural posture because at an earlier time the Court entered an Order releasing Defendant to the custody of his
daughter, third-party custodian Amy Manning. Defendant has fared well under the stringent release conditions the Court imposed. However, the
third-party custodian is no longer willing to serve in that capacity. Therefore, as the Court explained during the January 22, 2008 hearing, in light
ofthe elimination of an essential component ofthe release conditions, the Court now finds there are no combination of conditions it could impose
that would reasonably assure the safety of the community upon Def`endant’s release.
With consideration to the statutory factors the Court must consider, in addition to the statements made during the November IQ, 2007
detention hearing. the Court has reached these conclusions based on the following findings and for the following reasons; . ‘ ‘ —
the nature and circumstances ofthe offense: Defendant is charged with possession of hundreds of images of child pornography on multiple
computers. This is a crime of violence and one that involves minor victims. He is facing a potentially lengthy prison sentence, perhaps 5-7
years.
the weight ofthe evidence: is very strong. The images were found on computers in Defendant’s residence. Defendantadmitted the computers were
his and he was the last to use them. Other evidence on the computers (such as emails) further link the computers to Defendant.

Case 1 :07-cr-00151-SLR Document 25 Filed O1/23/2008 Page 2 of 2
e. AO 472 (Rev. l2r'O3) Order ofDetention Pending Trial
the history and characteristics ofthe Defendant: Defendant served the City of Wilmington for more than 35 years, including as a police otiicer. He
has long—tcr·m ties to the community. He has support offamily and friends. On the other hand, he has a conviction for domestic violence, a
history of chronic depression (which included an overnight commitment at one point}, has in the past failed to fully and effectively participate
in his own necessary treatement, and is a recovering alcoholic. .
the nature and seriousness ofthe danger to the communigg that would be posed by the Defendant’s release: child pornography is plainly dangerous
to the community, as, at minimum, its possession contributes to a market for materials that victimize children.
Part III—Directions 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 aftbrded 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 of the corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United States marshal f he purpose of an appearance
in connection with a court proceeding.
AQ MO M . U
Dat Signature of Judge
Leonard P. Stark U.S. Magistrate
_ Name and Title 0fJudge
*lnsc1·t as applicable: ta) Controlled Substances Act (2t U.S.C. § 801 erseq.); (b) Controlled Substances import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. § 95l
er seq.); or (c} Section i ol“Act of Sept. 15, l980 (2l U.S.C. § 955a).

Case 1:07-cr-00151-SLR

Document 25

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cr-00151-SLR

Document 25

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 2 of 2