MEMORANDUM OPINION
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
Pending
before the Court is Defendant Lawrence Gamble's Motion to
Revoke Detention Order, ECF No. 21. Mr. Gamble previously
opposed his detention at the preliminary detention hearing
and further filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision to detain him. He now challenges his detention for a
third time and requests that this Court order his release on
appropriate conditions. Upon consideration of the
parties' submissions, [1] relevant legal authorities, and the
record as a whole, the Court shall DENY Mr.
Gamble's Motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Indictment charges Mr. Gamble with three counts: conspiracy
to obstruct justice under 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1), (c)(2), (k);
obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1512(c)(1), (c)(2); and obstruction of enforcement of 18
U.S.C. § 1591 (which prohibits sex trafficking of
children by force, fraud, or coercion) in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1591(d). Indictment, ECF No. 17. Mr. Gamble was
first arrested on May 17, 2019. See Complaint, ECF
No. 1; May 17, 2019 Arrest Warrant, ECF No. 4. Magistrate
Judge G. Michael Harvey held a preliminary detention hearing
on May 21 and May 22, 2019. See May 21, 2019 and May
22, 2019 Minute Orders. Magistrate Judge Harvey found that
Mr. Gamble had not rebutted the presumption of dangerousness
and that the relevant factors weighed heavily against his
release; he therefore ordered Mr. Gamble detained prior to
trial. See May 31, 2019 Detention Memorandum
(“First Detention Order”), ECF No. 7.
Mr.
Gamble then moved to reconsider Magistrate Judge Harvey's
Pretrial Detention Order on September 6, 2019. Def.'s
Mot. to Recons. Pretrial Detention Order, ECF No. 13. He
contested that he presented a danger to the community.
Id. at 5. Magistrate Judge Harvey held a hearing on
this motion on September 27, 2019 and denied Mr. Gamble's
motion. See Sept. 27, 2019 Minute Order. As the
magistrate judge explained in the relevant Minute Order, Mr.
Gamble largely reiterated his prior arguments and advanced
only one new argument that Mr. Gamble had a possibility of
employment if he was released. See Sept. 30, 2017
Minute Order (“Second Detention Order”). However,
this did not change the magistrate judge's conclusion
that Mr. Gamble posed a danger to the community due to the
nature of his charges, and the new evidence accordingly did
not change the magistrate judge's initial determination.
See Id. Mr. Gamble now challenges his pretrial
detention for a third time.
In his
current Motion, Mr. Gamble does not appear to contest the
evidence presented at the preliminary detention hearing held
in front of Magistrate Judge Harvey, other than to discount
the credibility of the witnesses because “the testimony
against Mr. Gamble was given under immunity and that at least
one of the witnesses lied.” Def.'s Mot. to Revoke
at 2. The Court addresses these concerns below. Otherwise, as
Mr. Gamble does not contest the findings of fact made by the
magistrate judge, the Court will incorporate and repeat
certain of those findings here.
In
short, Mr. Gamble's case is related to another case in
this Court in which Rodregiz Antwon Cole is charged with the
sex trafficking of a child by force, fraud, or coercion in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a). When law enforcement
executed a search warrant on Mr. Cole's residence on
April 11, 2019, they found Mr. Gamble and one of the
witnesses, Witness 1, standing near a Toyota Avalon that
belonged to Mr. Gamble and was parked outside the residence.
First Detention Order at 3. Mr. Gamble and others appeared to
be packing Mr. Cole's belongings into the Avalon.
Id. Mr. Gamble gave permission for the vehicle to be
searched. Id. Inside the vehicle, law enforcement
found bags that contained items with evidentiary value.
Id. This included “pimp-related clothing and
other items, such as a pimp cup and a 2018 Pimp of the Year
trophy.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). It also contained vehicle tags for a gray Lexus
registered to Witness 1 that was also parked outside the
residence. Id. Investigators later discovered that
Mr. Gamble had called a tow track to remove the Lexus and a
BMW also parked in front of the residence. Id.
Investigators
also found a critical piece of evidence in the Avalon: A
sonogram “was found in the center console of
Defendant's Toyota Avalon.” Id. The
sonogram is important because it contained the true name and
birth date of a woman referred to as K.M., who represented
herself as an underage victim of sex trafficking when she was
stopped by local law enforcement on April 5, 2019.
Id. at 2. When interviewed by law enforcement at the
scene, Mr. Gamble denied putting Mr. Cole's property in
his car and denied any knowledge of the sonogram.
Id. at 3.
Witness
1, who was a childhood friend of Mr. Cole's and who had a
child by him, began cooperating in return for immunity the
same day. Id. Witness 1 explained that Mr. Cole had
called her to remove his property from his residence in
Baltimore and to enlist the help of Mr. Gamble, whom she
understood to be a close friend of Mr. Cole's.
Id. at 3-4. Call records demonstrate that Witness 1
first communicated with Mr. Gamble on April 7, 2019, and
spoke with him again on April 8, 2019. Id. at 4.
Witness 1 also stated that Mr. Gamble “told her about
the sonogram, when in an early phone conversation he said
that he had gone to the Baltimore residence in part to look
for the document.” Id. She denied ever seeing
the sonogram or having knowledge about it being in Mr.
Gamble's Avalon. Id. In fact, in a recorded call
on April 9, 2019, Witness 1 asked Mr. Cole about the sonogram
and stated that Mr. Gamble had told her about it.
Id.
Another
witness, Witness 2, also cooperated in return for immunity.
Id. at 5. Witness 2 identified herself as a
prostitute for Mr. Cole who had shared a bedroom with K.M.
Id. Witness 2 explained that she and Witness 3 had
gone to the Baltimore residence to look for K.M. Id.
After they returned, Witness 3 allowed three men, including
Mr. Gamble, into the residence. Id. Mr. Gamble
ordered Witness 2 and Witness 3 “to give him the money
they had made that morning, pack their belongings, and
leave.” Id.
The
magistrate judge also found that Mr. Gamble had one prior
felony conviction for attempted robbery from 2006 and a
series of misdemeanors and other violations, including for
marijuana possession and driving without a license.
Id.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under
the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 et
seq., if a judicial officer finds 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, ”
that officer “shall order the detention of the person
before trial.” Id. § 3142(e)(1). Here,
Magistrate Judge Harvey found that Mr. Gamble rebutted the
presumption as to risk of flight. The Court agrees with
Magistrate Judge Harvey's reasoning and conclusion on
this point and adopts them here. Consequently, the Court must
only consider whether the “safety of any other person
and the community” can be assured. See Id.
There must be “clear and convincing” evidence of
dangerousness to support a finding under this prong.
Id. § 3142(f). “The default position of
the law, therefore, is that a defendant should be released
pending trial.” United States v. Stone, 608
F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010).
“That
default is modified, however, for certain, particularly
dangerous defendants.” Id. The Act creates a
rebuttable presumption of dangerousness if “there is
probable cause to believe that the” defendant
committed, for instance, “an offense under chapter 77
of this title for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 20
years or more is prescribed.” 18 U.S.C. §
3142(e)(3)(D). A grand jury indictment alone is “enough
to raise the rebuttable presumption that no condition would
reasonably assure the safety of the community.”
United States v. Smith, 79 F.3d 1208, 1210 (D.C.
Cir. 1996). The Indictment against Mr. Gamble charges him
with a violation of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1591(d), ECF No. 17 at
2, which, as Magistrate Judge Harvey ...