United States v. Magdaleno
5:18-cr-00466
N.D. Cal.Apr 23, 2020Background
- Defendant Michael Cazares ("Lil Rhino") is charged in a RICO indictment with violent gang-related offenses, including conspiracy to commit attempted murder and assault with a dangerous weapon while in Monterey County Jail.
- Magistrate Judge Cousins originally ordered Cazares detained (Aug. 26, 2019); Cazares later moved to reopen detention citing COVID-19, and the magistrate granted temporary release on conditions (Apr. 14, 2020) including a $100,000 bond, his mother as custodian, and 24/7 home incarceration with electronic monitoring.
- The United States appealed and obtained a stay of the release pending appeal; the district court held a telephonic de novo review and hearing (Apr. 21, 2020).
- The district court applied §3142(i) "compelling reason" / COVID framework that also incorporates §3142(g) factors (nature of offense, history, community danger, weight of evidence).
- The court found Cazares has a long criminal history, proven gang ties, and allegedly committed violent acts while in custody; the proposed home-confinement plan (mother as custodian + monitoring) did not sufficiently mitigate danger.
- The court concluded that COVID-19 concerns did not constitute a compelling reason to release because Cazares is not in a high-risk medical group, release would increase risk to his vulnerable mother and potentially to others, and the danger to community/witnesses outweighed the COVID-related benefits of release; the court revoked the magistrate’s release order and ordered continued detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for magistrate detention/release order | District court reviews magistrate order de novo. | De novo review applies; release appropriate under §3142(i). | Court applied de novo review and the §3142(i) framework. |
| Whether COVID-19 is a "compelling reason" to reopen detention | COVID concerns do not overcome the danger posed by Cazares. | COVID risk in jail and need to care for son justify temporary release. | COVID concerns alone were not compelling; balance favors detention. |
| Adequacy of proposed release conditions (bond, 24/7 home incarceration, monitoring, mother custodian) | Conditions insufficient to mitigate risk given gang ties, history of offending in custody, and monitoring limits. | Electronic monitoring, bond, and mother supervision would reasonably assure safety and appearance. | Conditions deemed inadequate; release revoked. |
| Risk to third parties from release (mother, son, community) | Release would expose a diabetic mother and potentially introduce virus from healthcare-worker son; increases community risk. | Risks can be managed (quarantine, household adjustments). | Release would materially increase risk to vulnerable household members and community; weighs against release. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1990) (district court reviews magistrate detention orders de novo)
- United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118 (9th Cir. 1991) (government bears burden by preponderance for flight; clear and convincing for danger)
- United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403 (9th Cir. 1985) (standards for release and detention under Bail Reform Act)
- United States v. Winsor, 785 F.2d 755 (9th Cir. 1986) (weight of the evidence is least important in detention analysis)
- United States v. Diaz-Hernandez, 943 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2019) (Bail Reform Act requires individualized §3142(g) analysis)