United States v. Cortez
Criminal No. 2017-0216
| D.D.C. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Cortez, Henry, and Albrecht were federally indicted for conspiracy and drug distribution crimes (marijuana and cocaine); Cortez was arrested after a search of Henry’s apartment recovered large amounts of marijuana/THC products and 71.5 g of cocaine.
- An undercover MPD officer arranged a purchase; Cortez allegedly delivered the ordered marijuana/THC products to the officer on video.
- Magistrate Judge Harvey ordered Cortez released on personal recognizance into third‑party custody (ex‑brother‑in‑law, a San Antonio police officer) subject to heightened supervision, electronic monitoring, weekly reporting, drug testing, surrender of passport, and other conditions; the Government appealed.
- The district court reviewed de novo under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)–(g), acknowledging the rebuttable presumption because of the cocaine charge (statutory maximum ~20 years).
- The court found: (1) strong evidence as to marijuana delivery (video) but weaker connection to the cocaine recovered in a common apartment; (2) Cortez’s limited residence in D.C., minimal criminal history, ties to San Antonio, and employment prospects weighed against detention; and (3) the magistrate’s restrictive conditions would reasonably assure community safety.
- The court denied the Government’s motion to revoke the release order and granted Cortez’s motion for release pending trial, adopting the magistrate’s conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Cortez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conditions exist that will reasonably assure community safety and appearance given the presumption of detention under § 3142(e)(3)(A) | Presumption applies due to cocaine charge; no combination of conditions will reasonably assure safety | Conditions proposed (third‑party custody, electronic monitoring, drug testing, weekly reporting) will assure appearance and safety; Cortez has limited role and positive ties | Court: Rebuttable presumption rebutted; magistrate’s conditions are sufficient; release affirmed |
| Weight of the evidence | Strong—video of delivery and substantial drugs/ledgers/cash seized from apartment | Cortez’s role was limited (delivery only), lived in D.C. only three weeks; cocaine not clearly attributable to her | Court: Evidence strong re marijuana delivery but weaker re cocaine; weight does not mandate detention |
| Danger to the community if released | Release would risk community safety given volume and nature of seized drugs | Heightened supervision, electronic monitoring, third‑party custody and testing mitigate risk | Court: Conditions adequately mitigate danger; factor weighs against detention |
| Appropriate scope of release conditions and supervision | Even stringent conditions may be insufficient given possible sentence severity | Specific conditions (custody with a police officer relative, monitoring, testing, surrender passport) are appropriate and enforceable | Court: Magistrate’s detailed conditions are appropriate and adopted |
Key Cases Cited
None (opinion does not cite reported judicial decisions).