United States v. Taylor, Criminal No. 2016-0233

Defendant Thomas Taylor indicted for distribution of 100 grams or more of a mixture containing PCP (21 U.S.C. § 841), creating a presumption of pretrial detention. Co-defendant Tyrone Trice also charged; Trice later pleaded guilty to a related count.
Government alleges two controlled buys: June 17, 2016 (one bottle of PCP for $1,400) and July 21, 2016 (eight ounces for $2,000); both transactions were digitally recorded; one sale involved activity in Maryland so only one federal count against Taylor.
Taylor has prior felony narcotics convictions (1999, 2002) and multiple other D.C. cases; recent D.C. charges for simple assault and possession of a prohibited weapon (knife found in his apartment).
Government argues Taylor is unemployed, relies on drug sales for income, and poses a danger to the community; seeks pretrial detention under the Bail Reform Act.
Taylor contends his felony convictions are old, disputes the strength of recent charges, and requests release to his apartment with electronic monitoring.
The court held a detention hearing, found the evidence strong and the offense serious, and ordered Taylor detained without bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory presumption for detention applies	Gov: Indictment alleges offense punishable by ≥10 years, triggering presumption	Taylor: Offers evidence to rebut presumption (old convictions; seeks ankle monitor)	Presumption applies; defendant failed to rebut
Risk of danger to the community	Gov: Large-quantity PCP distribution, recorded sales, prior drug convictions, unemployed — danger to community	Taylor: Prior felonies are remote; recent charges arose from arrest at his apartment; monitoring would mitigate risk	By clear and convincing evidence, defendant poses danger; detention ordered
Strength of the evidence	Gov: Strong — two digitally recorded transactions and corroborating facts	Taylor: Challenges probative value but offers no evidence undermining recordings	Court finds evidence strong and probative
Whether conditions of release could mitigate risks	Gov: No combination of conditions would reasonably assure safety	Taylor: Electronic monitoring and residence restriction would suffice	Court: Conditions would not reasonably assure community safety; detention required

United States v. Xulam, 84 F.3d 441 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (government bears burden to show flight risk by preponderance)
United States v. Peralta, 849 F.2d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (community-safety risk must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (identifies § 3142(g) factors for detention decisions)
United States v. Williams, 903 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (grand jury indictment may establish probable cause for § 3142(e) presumption)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (probable cause standards for pretrial restraints)
United States v. Alatishe, 768 F.2d 364 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (defendant must offer credible evidence to rebut detention presumption)