United States v. Roba
Criminal No. 2017-0123
D.D.C.Jul 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Olona Roba charged by federal indictment with armed robbery, possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (D.C. law), two Hobbs Act robberies (18 U.S.C. § 1951), and two § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) counts for brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence.
- MPD investigated a series of armed robberies (April–May 2017). Surveillance and witness proffers link Roba to three robberies in one week, plus possible earlier incidents; footage shows a recurring black shirt with a white symbol, masks, and similar shoes.
- Law enforcement executed a search warrant at an apartment tied to Roba: recovered a neon jacket like one described by a victim, Roba’s passport, and a 9mm semi-automatic firearm similar to a weapon in the videos.
- Co-defendant Jarvell Kent admitted to two 7‑Eleven robberies and implicated Roba; Roba made a recorded custodial statement and was observed wearing the same black shirt seen in surveillance.
- At the detention hearing the government moved for pretrial detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) based on the § 924(c) counts (triggering the rebuttable presumption of dangerousness). Pretrial Services reported Roba ineligible for certain enhanced supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 924(c) brandishing counts trigger the § 3142(e) rebuttable presumption of dangerousness | Government: § 924(c) charges create the statutory rebuttable presumption that no conditions will assure community safety or appearance | Roba: challenges identification and sufficiency; notes no adult prior convictions | Court: presumption applies based on the § 924(c) charges |
| Whether Roba rebutted the statutory presumption | Government: evidence (video, witness IDs, co‑defendant admission, recovered firearms) supports danger | Roba: argued lack of definitive ID in one robbery, requested release to mother or halfway house | Court: Roba failed to produce credible evidence to rebut the presumption; detention ordered |
| Whether any conditions could reasonably assure community safety | Government: pattern of armed robberies, multiple firearms, investigatory ties to other robberies | Roba: offered supervised release options (mother’s home, halfway house) | Court: release unsuitable; living with mother or halfway house would not meaningfully reduce risk; no conditions suffice |
| Weighing § 3142(g) factors (nature of offense, weight of evidence, history, danger) | Government: factors support detention (violent offenses, strong evidence, weapons, pattern) | Roba: emphasized lack of prior adult convictions and contested identifications | Court: all § 3142(g) factors weigh for detention; evidence is strong and danger to community substantial |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 489 U.S. 739 (1989) (danger to the community alone may justify pretrial detention)
- United States v. Perry, 788 F.2d 100 (3d Cir. 1986) (danger may support detention)
- United States v. Sazenski, 806 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1986) (community safety as detention basis)
- United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (preponderance standard when detention premised on risk of flight)
- United States v. Alatishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (defendant must produce some credible evidence to rebut § 3142(e) presumption)
- United States v. Lee, 195 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2016) (burden of production requires actual evidence, not speculation)
- United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010) (presumption remains part of § 3142(g) analysis even if rebutted)
- United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1985) (defendant should present features taking case outside congressional paradigm)
- United States v. Bess, 678 F. Supp. 929 (D.D.C. 1988) (presumption reflects congressional view of risks posed by § 924(c) defendants)
- United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) (burden of persuasion remains with the government)
- United States v. Ali, 793 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D.D.C. 2011) (presumption given substantial weight in § 3142(g) analysis)
- United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986) (presumption incorporated into § 3142(g) factors)