United States v. Zamorano
1:19-cr-00531
D. Colo.May 15, 2020Background:
- Zamorano is charged with possession with intent to distribute ~40.7 pounds of methamphetamine (21 U.S.C. § 841), which carries a ten‑year mandatory minimum.
- Magistrate Judge Crews ordered pretrial detention on Dec. 11, 2019, citing strong evidence, lack of ties to the district, unstable residence/employment, and immigration status; a reconsideration motion was denied on Apr. 10, 2020.
- Zamorano moved to revoke the detention (18 U.S.C. § 3145(b)) and sought temporary release under § 3142(i), citing COVID‑19 risks, morbid obesity/medical history, and limited attorney access at the Jefferson County Detention Center (Jeffco).
- She proposed release to live with her daughter or partner in California; the magistrate found those plans unverified or insufficient to allay flight/community danger concerns.
- The district court reviewed de novo, considered updated COVID‑19 information (including later-reported detainee cases), and denied revocation and temporary release: it found continued flight risk and community danger and that § 3142(i) release was not appropriate (marshal custody unavailable; proposed custodians not adequate).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Zamorano) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether detention should be revoked under § 3145(b) given changed circumstances (COVID‑19). | Magistrate detention order correct; presumption of detention applies; evidence/timeframe unchanged. | COVID‑19 and verified living arrangements in CA materially change the calculus and reduce flight risk. | Denied. De novo review affirms detention; presumption and flight risk remain. |
| 2. Whether COVID‑19 and defendant's medical condition constitute a "compelling reason" for temporary release under § 3142(i). | No compelling reason shown; Jeffco had no confirmed cases at first and later cases do not outweigh flight/danger concerns; marshal custody unavailable. | Morbid obesity and past surgery make her high‑risk for severe COVID‑19, warranting temporary release. | Denied. Court accepts obesity as a risk factor but release unavailable to marshal and proposed custodians unsuitable. |
| 3. Whether inability to meet counsel in person justifies temporary release under § 3142(i) for defense preparation. | Attorney access via telephone remains available; logistical/health issues at Jeffco would, if accepted, justify release for most detainees and cannot be individualized. | Jeffco prohibits in‑person visits and phones/rooms are unsanitized and overburdened, impeding effective assistance of counsel. | Denied. Telephone access suffices; systemic problems are not a basis to single out release absent additional individual showing. |
| 4. Whether defendant rebutted the presumption of detention under § 3142(e)(3)(A) and satisfied § 3142(g) factors. | Evidence, detention factors, and risk of reconnecting to drug sources support continued detention; proposed custodians not reliable. | She produced evidence of living arrangements and COVID‑related travel restrictions to rebut presumption. | Denied. Burden of production insufficient; presumption remains a factor and government meets its burdens on flight/danger standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353 (10th Cir. 1991) (presumption of detention in major drug cases shifts burden of production to defendant but presumption remains a factor for the court).
- United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610 (10th Cir. 2003) (government bears burden of persuasion on risk standards; district court reviews magistrate detention orders de novo).