United States v. Lee
195 F. Supp. 3d 120
D.D.C.2016Background
- Defendant Breyon Lee indicted for Hobbs Act armed robbery (18 U.S.C. § 1951) for a December 21, 2015 Rite‑Aid robbery; arrested June 17, 2016.
- Surveillance, fingerprints, and social‑media evidence tied Lee to the Rite‑Aid robbery and linked him to at least two additional armed convenience‑store robberies and receipt of property from a shoe‑store robbery.
- Video shows three masked perpetrators; two brandished handguns while the third (whose fingerprints and clothing match Lee) vaulted the counter and removed medicine.
- Magistrate judge initially ordered release to High Intensity Supervision Program (HISP) with home confinement; government appealed under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).
- District court conducted de novo review, found probable cause to believe Lee aided/abetted or conspired in a § 924(c) firearms offense (triggering the rebuttable presumption of dangerousness), and received evidence from Pretrial Services recommending detention.
- Court ordered pretrial detention: defendant failed to rebut the presumption and, even aside from the presumption, § 3142(g) factors (nature of the offense, weight of evidence, history/characteristics, danger to community) weighed heavily for detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 3142(e)(3)(B) rebuttable presumption of dangerousness applies | Probable cause shows Lee participated in a violent robbery in which firearms were used; aiding/abetting or conspiracy liability for § 924(c) suffices to trigger the presumption | Lee was not one of the gunmen; he is not charged under § 924(c); evidence for other robberies is largely circumstantial | Court found probable cause that Lee aided/abetted or conspired in a § 924(c) offense; presumption applies |
| Burden and sufficiency to rebut the presumption | Once presumption is triggered, defendant must produce credible evidence to rebut; even if produced, presumption remains a factor | Lee offered lack of serious prior felony history, no subsequent crimes since Dec 2015, and proposed HISP/home confinement | Lee failed to produce sufficient rebuttal evidence; presumption not overcome |
| Whether any conditions (HISP/home confinement) would reasonably assure community safety | Release proposals inadequate: proposed residences lack reliable supervision; Pretrial Services recommends detention; GPS monitoring insufficiently supervised | Release to father or girlfriend with HISP could manage risk | Considering § 3142(g) factors, conditions would not reasonably assure safety; detention ordered |
| Consideration of § 3142(g) factors absent presumption | Government emphasized violent nature, weight of evidence (fingerprints, video, social media), and risk of organized string of robberies | Defendant emphasized limited criminal record and time elapsed since alleged offenses | Even setting aside the presumption, the § 3142(g) analysis (nature of offenses, weight of evidence, defendant’s ties and record, and community danger) favors detention |
Key Cases Cited
- Salerno v. United States, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (danger to community alone justifies pretrial detention under Bail Reform Act)
- Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014) (aider/abettor liability for § 924(c) requires advance knowledge a confederate would use a gun)
- Alatishe v. United States, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (rebuttable presumption shifts burden of production to defendant)
- Portes v. United States, 786 F.2d 758 (7th Cir. 1985) (presumptions shift burden of production but do not eliminate government’s burden of persuasion)
- Stone v. United States, 608 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010) (presumption remains a factor after defendant produces evidence; weight‑of‑evidence consideration limited to dangerousness)
- Bess v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 929 (D.D.C. 1988) (facts found at detention hearing determine whether presumption applies; conspiracy can be considered a crime of violence)
- Long v. United States, 905 F.2d 1572 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (non‑possessor may be punished as principal under § 924(c) via aiding/abetting or conspiracy)