United States v. Bailey
4:21-cr-00037
W.D. Mo.Feb 23, 2022Background
- Magistrate conducted a detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) after a government motion, and issued findings required by § 3142(i).
- The order identifies two statutory rebuttable presumptions: § 3142(e)(2) (previous violator) and § 3142(e)(3) (serious drug/firearm/other offenses), and explains the elements that trigger each presumption.
- The court found the presumption(s) applicable (probable cause/charging allegations fit the statutory categories and prior-conviction/recent-release criteria where relevant).
- The defendant either failed to rebut the presumption or, even after rebuttal, detention was warranted after weighing § 3142(g) factors.
- The court concluded by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions will protect community safety and by a preponderance that no conditions will assure appearance, and ordered remand to the custody of the Attorney General with specified custody and discovery-access protocols.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of statutory detention presumptions (§ 3142(e)(2) & § 3142(e)(3)) | Charges and prior-conviction facts meet statutory elements; presumption that no conditions will assure safety applies | Defendant argued the presumption did not apply or could be rebutted with proposed conditions/evidence | Court found the presumption(s) applicable based on the statutory elements/charges |
| Sufficiency of defendant's rebuttal to the presumption | Government maintained presumption unrebutted or still dispositive when balanced with other factors | Defendant offered evidence to rebut (e.g., ties, conditions) | Court held defendant did not rebut the presumption, or even if rebutted detention remained warranted after considering other factors |
| Burden and proof under § 3142(g) (risk of nonappearance and danger) | Government proved by clear and convincing evidence danger to community and by preponderance risk of nonappearance; cited factors (strong evidence, prior record, conduct while on supervision, weapons/violence, substance abuse, foreign ties, prior failures to appear/evade) | Defendant argued conditions could reasonably assure safety and appearance | Court held government met burdens and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure safety or appearance |
| Custody directives and limited allowances (discovery access, temporary transfers) | Government sought custody with limited operational allowances for law enforcement and discovery access | Defendant sought release or less-restrictive conditions and access to counsel and discovery | Court ordered remand to Attorney General custody, required counsel access and specified electronic discovery review protocols; authorized temporary transfers to federal agencies only with written consent and strict safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- No reported cases are cited in this detention order.