Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Goines

United States District Court, D. Kansas

September 3, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
EMANUEL E. GOINES, JR., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JOHN W. BROOMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This case comes before the court on Defendant's motion to review the magistrate's order of detention and release Defendant on bond. (Doc. 14.) The court held an evidentiary hearing on August 27, 2019. Defendant's motion is DENIED for the reasons stated herein.

         I. Procedural History

         On July 16, 2019, Defendant was indicted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The indictment contains one count of felon in possession of a firearm. On July 22, a detention hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Gale, who granted the Government's motion for detention. (Doc. 10.)

         On August 20, Defendant moved for review of the detention order. This court held an evidentiary hearing on August 27. Defendant offered evidence by proffer and the government offered the testimony of Wichita Police Department Detective Darren Hicks. Defendant declined to testify but he made a statement to the court.

         II. Legal Standard

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), Defendant may seek review of a magistrate judge's order of detention. The district court's review of a magistrate judge's detention order is de novo. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2003). A de novo evidentiary hearing, however, is not required. The district court may either “start from scratch” or “incorporate the record of the proceedings conducted by the magistrate judge including the exhibits admitted.” United States v. Burks, 141 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan. 2001) (citing United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir. 1991)). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to detention hearings. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). The court may allow the parties to present information by proffer or it may insist on direct testimony. See id.

         Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, the court must order a defendant's pretrial release, with or without conditions, unless it “finds 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). In making this determination, the court must take into account the available information concerning

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence ... or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including-
(A) the person's character, physical and mental condition, family ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and
(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.