United States v. Emanuel, 2:17-cr-00060-DAD

Government moved for detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) and the court held a detention hearing on June 13, 2017.
The government asserted rebuttable presumptions under § 3142(e)(2) (previous violator) and § 3142(e)(3) (serious narcotics/firearm/other offenses) because the charged conduct and defendant's history fit statutory categories.
The court found the defendant failed to rebut the applicable presumption(s) or, alternatively, that detention remained warranted after considering rebuttal evidence.
Applying the § 3142(g) factors, the court concluded the government met the required proof standards (clear and convincing evidence of danger; preponderance of risk of nonappearance).
The court listed aggravating factors supporting detention: strong weight of evidence, lengthy potential sentence, prior criminal history and criminal activity while on supervision, history of violence/weapons, substance abuse, unstable employment/residence, prior failures to appear or evade law enforcement, lack of ties/immigration status, and other unverified background concerns.
The court ordered the defendant remanded to the custody of the Attorney General (with usual protections for counsel access and separate housing to the extent practicable).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of statutory detention presumptions under § 3142(e)	Presumptions apply because charged offenses and prior convictions meet statutory categories	Defendant contends presumption is rebutted or not applicable	Court found presumption(s) applied and defendant did not rebut sufficiently; detention ordered
Burden and quantum of proof required for detention	Government: clear and convincing evidence for danger; preponderance for risk of flight	Defendant disputed sufficiency of proof	Court applied those standards and found government met them
Weight of § 3142(g) factors (danger and risk of nonappearance)	Government relied on factors listed (criminal history, conduct while supervised, weapons/violence, substance abuse, instability, prior failures to appear, immigration status)	Defendant urged release conditions could mitigate risks	Court concluded factors supported detention despite possible conditions of release
Form of relief/remand order	Government sought detention and remand to AG custody	Defendant sought release (or proposed conditions)	Court ordered remand to the Attorney General with counsel access and separation from sentenced prisoners as practicable