MEMORANDUM SUPPORTING PRETRIAL RELEASE ORDER
ROBIN
M. MERIWEATHER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On
December 3, 2019, after conducting a detention hearing, the
undersigned Magistrate Judge determined that the United
States had not carried its burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that no conditions existed pursuant to
which the Defendant, Khalik Simpkins, could be released
without unduly endangering the safety of the community. The
United States requested a stay of the release order, in light
of its intent to file an appeal of the ruling. The
undersigned Magistrate Judge stayed the release order through
December 5, 2019. In light of the pending appeal, and for
clarity of the record, the reasons for the detention ruling
are set forth below.[1]
DETENTION
ANALYSIS
A.
Background
The
background was set forth in the Government's Memorandum
in Support of Pretrial Detention, which was incorporated by
reference as a proffer at the detention hearing. In addition,
the defense orally proffered facts in opposition to the
detention memorandum. The most significant portions of the
parties' respective proffers are referenced in the
analysis of each factor below.
B.
Legal Standard
“In
our society, liberty is the norm and detention prior to trial
or without trial is the carefully limited exception.”
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987).
The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et
seq., articulates the circumstances that trigger that
exception. Specifically, provisions of the Bail Reform Act
authorize a judicial officer to order the detention of a
defendant before trial if the judicial officer determines
after a hearing that “no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
person as required and the safety of any other person and the
community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).
A
finding that a defendant poses a danger to the community, or
that there is a serious risk the defendant will flee,
provides an adequate basis to order pretrial detention.
See Salerno, 481 U.S. at 755; United States v.
Lee, 195 F.Supp.3d 120, 124 (D.D.C. 2016); United
States v. Henry, 935 F.Supp. 24, 25 (D.D.C. 1996). A
detention decision based upon the defendant's
dangerousness to the community must be supported by
“clear and convincing evidence.” 18 U.S.C. §
3142(f); see United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208,
1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In contrast, a detention decision
based upon a finding that no set of conditions will
reasonably assure the defendant's appearance in court
“need only be supported by a ‘preponderance of
the evidence.'” United States v. Simpkins,
826 F.2d 94, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting United States
v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327, 329 (D.C. Cir. 1986)); see
United States v. Xulam, 84 F.3d 441, 442 (D.C. Cir.
1996); United States v. Anderson, 382 F.Supp.2d 13,
14 (D.D.C. 2005).
The
Bail Reform Act directs judges to consider four factors in
determining whether any conditions of release will reasonably
assure a defendant's future presence in court or assure
the safety of any other person and the community: (1) the
nature and circumstances of the offense charged; (2) the
weight of the evidence against the defendant; (3) the
defendant's history and characteristics; and (4) the
nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or to the
community posed by the defendant's release. See
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); Xulam, 84 F.3d at 442.
C.
Analysis of Statutory Factors
1.
Nature and Circumstances of Charged Offense
This
factor weighs in favor of pretrial detention because Mr.
Simpkins is charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm as a
felon, and the firearm was allegedly loaded. The fact that
Mr. Simpkins is not accused of wielding, brandishing, or
using the firearm does not tilt this factor in favor of
release.
2.
Weight of the Evidence
This
factor is neutral, because the evidence was strong enough to
support an indictment but not strong enough to weigh in favor
of detention. The weapon was recovered from a room occupied
by Defendant and his girlfriend, on the floor, between the
bed and the wall, near the side of the bed where
Defendant's identification was located. In addition, a
round of ammunition was located in a dresser drawer next to
Defendant's passport. However, the defense proffered that
the room was used by Defendant's stepfather, who
previously was arrested for possessing a firearm; the defense
also indicated that other male relatives had occasionally
used that room. The defense also proffered that Defendant
listed the home where the weapon was recovered as his
permanent and primary address, and at the time of the search
he was sleeping there because of the upcoming Thanksgiving
holiday, but that he had recently primarily stayed at his
girlfriend's house instead of that address. In addition,
the photograph proffered by the defense shows that the bed
was pushed up against a wall, and that the furniture near
which the weapon was recovered was near the foot of the bed
(not a nightstand in easy reach of a person reclining in
bed). The defense also proffered that the phone recovered
from that furniture was not Defendant's phone. ...