United States v. Darryl Paul
1:25-mr-00176
| W.D.N.Y. | May 27, 2025Background
- Darryl Paul is charged with attempted sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion, and with possessing cocaine with intent to distribute.
- Magistrate Judge McCarthy ordered Paul's pretrial release under strict conditions (including home incarceration, GPS and internet monitoring, and a significant property bond).
- The government appealed, arguing that even strict conditions could not mitigate the risk that Paul posed.
- The District Court, reviewing de novo, considered whether any conditions could reasonably assure the safety of others and the community.
- The case involved evidence of possible witness intimidation based on Paul's prior conduct and communications.
- Ultimately, the District Court found the risk too great and revoked the release order, ordering Paul detained pretrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Paul be detained pretrial under §3142? | Paul presents a danger to the community and risk of witness intimidation even under strict conditions. | Paul's strict release conditions and personal circumstances sufficiently mitigate any danger or risk of flight. | Pretrial detention is warranted; no conditions could mitigate danger. |
| Weight of the evidence and seriousness of offenses | There is significant evidence and serious charges, including multiple witnesses and Paul's own admissions. | Challenges the strength of evidence and stresses compliance under proposed conditions. | The government's evidence is strong and favors detention. |
| Criminal history and personal characteristics | Paul's criminal and behavioral history supports detention (prior conviction, police reports). | Old convictions, no recent convictions, health issues, family support. | Factor weighs slightly for Paul, but not decisive. |
| Risk of witness intimidation | Prior messages show real risk that Paul could intimidate witnesses if released. | Argues proposed monitoring and restrictions will prevent such risks. | Risk of intimidation cannot be sufficiently mitigated; supports detention. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1985) (district judge must make independent determination on detention)
- United States v. Enix, 209 F. Supp. 3d 557 (W.D.N.Y. 2016) (standard for reviewing detention orders)
- United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2000) (proffers permissible in bail proceedings)
- United States v. English, 629 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2011) (burdens of proof in detention hearings)
- United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) (presumption favoring detention and burdens of production/persuasion)