United States v. Smoot
Criminal No. 2017-0137
| D.D.C. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Defendant Charles Smoot was indicted for one count of bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)) arising from a July 5, 2017 TD Bank robbery in Washington, D.C.; a teller (pregnant) was briefly hospitalized.
- Surveillance and proffer: suspect handed threatening notes, concealed right arm in a black Under Armour bag, wore distinctive hat and sunglasses; two bait-money GPS devices tracked cash to a residence at 405 60th St NE.
- FBI surveillance observed a person matching the suspect's description at that residence; the suspect fled in a red Volvo and evaded an attempted stop.
- A search of the residence produced a black Under Armour bag, black glasses, black pants, and a GPS device; the homeowner identified a transient named "Dallas" (Charles) as having been present and behaving nervously.
- Defendant was arrested July 7, 2017 wearing shoes and a watch consistent with surveillance; he denied the robberies but admitted evading police; he also faces supervised-release violations and an outstanding Maryland warrant.
- Pretrial services advised Defendant was ineligible for halfway-house placement; defense sought conditional release for drug treatment, while the government moved for pretrial detention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a statutory rebuttable presumption of dangerousness/fugitivity under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) is triggered | § 3142(e)(3) presumption applies given charged violent conduct and flight risk | Presumption not rebutted or inapplicable (defense does not contest applicability at hearing) | Court: presumption under § 3142(e)(3) does not apply (government was mistaken) but detention still warranted |
| Whether any conditions can reasonably assure community safety | Government: facts, criminal history, recent evasion, and robbery resulting in hospitalization show danger to community | Smoot: requests release with conditions to a halfway house for drug treatment; attributes conduct to addiction | Court: by clear and convincing evidence no conditions will reasonably assure community safety — detention ordered |
| Weight of the evidence supporting identification | Government: surveillance, matching clothing/shoes/watch, GPS leading to residence, items recovered at residence support identification | Defense: no incontestable on-video ID; challenges strength but offered no contrary evidence on the merits | Court: weight of evidence favors government; a reasonable jury could convict |
| Whether Defendant's history/character will permit supervised release | Government: extensive violent/criminal history and repeated violations of supervised release, recent arrests and noncompliance | Defense: argues history stems from drug addiction and requests treatment placement | Court: Defendant's lengthy criminal history and noncompliance weigh for detention; halfway-house placement not feasible per Pretrial Services |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 489 U.S. 739 (1989) (danger to community alone can justify pretrial detention)
- United States v. Simpkins, 826 F.2d 94 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (standard of proof for flight-risk-based detention is preponderance)
- United States v. Alatishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (defendant must produce some credible evidence to rebut presumption)
- United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010) (presumption remains as an evidentiary finding even when rebutted)
- United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433 (2d Cir. 2001) (burden of persuasion on detention remains with government)
- United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1986) (presumption incorporated into § 3142(g) factors)