United States v. Desmond Singh
21-4249
| 4th Cir. | Jun 25, 2021Background
- Desmond Babloo Singh was arrested and later indicted on cyberstalking and aggravated identity theft charges after an alleged months-long online campaign harassing two victims (hacking social accounts, thousands of fake accounts, SWATing, and traveling to confront one victim).
- Victim 1 obtained a temporary restraining order; law enforcement never located Singh for service and he missed a hearing.
- A New York magistrate initially ordered Singh released on conditions (home confinement, GPS, internet restrictions); the government sought revocation in the District of Maryland, and the district court ordered Singh detained pending trial.
- At the district detention hearing the court considered the § 3142(g) factors (nature of charges, weight of evidence, history/characteristics, danger to community) and found by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would reasonably assure victims’ safety.
- Singh appealed the detention order; the appellate majority vacated the order and directed release, and Judge Diaz dissented, defending the district court’s reasonable application of the law and the need for appellate deference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court applied correct evidentiary standard for detention | Government: court applied the required clear-and-convincing standard | Singh: court misstated and applied preponderance and a presumption of danger | Diaz: any misstatements were slips; court recited and applied correct standard on the record and in writing |
| Whether evidentiary proffers were sufficient to weigh the evidence factor | Government: attorney proffers and some text/social-post evidence supported weight against Singh | Singh: no hard evidence in the record; reliance on proffers/hearsay improper | Diaz: proffers and record items were permissible and supported the court’s weight-of-evidence finding (permitted at detention hearings) |
| Whether Singh posed a danger warranting detention despite nonviolent labels | Government: threats, SWATing, travel to confront victim, obsessive conduct show danger | Singh: alleged crimes are nonviolent and do not support detention | Diaz: district court reasonably found danger—threats, SWATing risk, travel to fight, and ongoing harassment predict continued risk to victims |
| Whether consideration of Singh’s mental health or other possible errors require reversal | Government: district court’s concerns about mental health were tentative; other proof sufficed | Singh: court overemphasized mental illness and erred | Diaz: any weight given to mental-health speculation was harmless because substantial evidence independently supports detention; appellate review must be deferential |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (pretrial detention requires clear and convincing evidence no conditions will reasonably assure safety)
- United States v. Clark, 865 F.2d 1433 (standard for appellate review of detention orders)
- United States v. Charboneau, 914 F.3d 906 (application of clear-error review to detention rulings)
- United States v. Williams, 753 F.2d 329 (attorney proffers acceptable at detention hearings)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (judges may rely on informal proof in pretrial proceedings)
- United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475 (harmless-error principles applicable to pretrial detention analysis)
- United States v. Montalvo–Murillo, 495 U.S. 711 (harmless-error discussion referenced for harmless-error review)