9th Attempt To Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond In The Yellow House Case
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 9th Attempt To Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond In The Yellow House Case as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,115
- Pages: 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. GUY M. NEIGHBORS, Defendant.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-02-CM
DETENTION ORDER A.
Order for Detention.
On May 20, 2009, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara, conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based on the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing, the court granted the Government’s renewed motion for revocation of bond and for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors (doc. 165). The court’s reasons for detaining defendant are set forth in Sections B and C of this order. The court denied the alternative portion of the Government’s motion which asked for a mental evaluation of defendant to determine whether he is competent to stand trial; defendant opposed any such evaluation that would be conducted in a custodial setting. Defendant is very stubborn, but that surely does not render him incompetent. And arguably there is some basis to suggest defendant has “delusions” (or at least strongly held opinions, justified or not) about the Government’s counsel and witnesses conspiring against him. But nothing credible has yet been presented to the court indicating defendant suffers from any mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to understand the nature of the instant criminal proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. Indeed, although it could be argued that defendant has pretty poor judgment and precious little common sense, his affect and behavior during court proceedings has been polite, attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at least average intelligence B.
Statement of Reasons for Detention.
The undersigned’s comments and findings from the bench on the record during the detention hearing are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, and as the ultimate reasons for detaining defendant, the court finds as follows: O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
: Most importantly, the court finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required. To be clear, the court does not believe defendant poses a flight risk in terms of physically fleeing the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduled court appearances. Rather, based on what has transpired to date, the court’s concern is with regard to defendant’s apparent refusal to comply in the future with a stipulated order dated July 30, 2008 concerning statements about Government counsel and witnesses, which order is an integral part of defendant’s conditions of release (doc. 118). Despite being specifically and repeatedly warned both by the court and defense counsel about such conduct being improper, defendant persists. Defendant has flagrantly violated the court’s order. Defendant shows no remorse. He only argues, though counsel: (1) that he feels “under siege”; (2) that any violation of the court’s order was “unintentional”; and (3) that perhaps another stern warning will serve to avoid violations of the court’s order in the future. The court will accept at face value defendant’s assertion that subjectively he feels under siege, something neither surprising nor unusual for anyone facing federal felony charges. The argument that defendant only may have unintentionally violated the court’s conditions of release simply is not credible. The record contains the fairly broad but still very clear language of the above-referenced stipulated order (doc. 118); significantly, the form of this order was not prepared by the court but rather negotiated by counsel and then signed by defendant last year to settle a pending bond revocation before the court was called upon to make its formal rulings after a lengthy and hotly contested detention hearing. Despite the clear restrictions in the July 30, 2008 order, defendant acknowledges he sent the e-mail “blast” dated April 22, 2009 that was admitted into evidence during the most recent hearing as Government’s Exhibit 1. The email clearly violates the court’s order. In setting and managing the conditions of release in this case, the court painstakingly has endeavored to be flexible, patient, lenient, and understanding with defendant. See docs. 65, 104-06, 110, 117-20, 131-32, 142, 147, and 150. Defendant has returned the court’s favor by being inflexible and obstinate. Unfortunately, it is now clear defendant cannot (or least will not) comply with the conditions that the court earlier imposed with his express agreement. : Alternatively, by clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community. Specifically, the court finds that defendant poses a serious risk of ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses. C.
Findings of Fact.
The court’s findings in connection with the decision to detain defendant are based on the evidence presented during the detention hearing, including the following:
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
-2-
: (1)
Nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the present case: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; wire fraud; and money laundering.
: (2)
The record presented during earlier detention hearings indicates the Government has a fairly strong case against defendant.
: (3)
The history and characteristics of defendant, including: : Even though as earlier indicated the court believes defendant is competent to stand trial, he may have a mental condition which may affect whether he can or will comply with the court’s orders. : The pretrial services report submitted in connection with earlier detention hearings indicates defendant has a history relating to drug abuse. : The pretrial services report indicates defendant has a significant prior criminal record (although not as significant in many federal felony cases). : As earlier indicated, defendant has been warned repeatedly by the court and his own lawyer about the consequences of disobedience of the court’s conditions of release.
: (4)
D.
The threat of continued criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses if defendant were released poses a serious risk of danger to the community.
Additional Directives.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(i)(2)-(4), the court directs defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel of record in this case. On order of a court of the United States, or on request of any attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is confined shall deliver defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
Dated:
May 21, 2009
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
s/ James P. O’Hara James P. O’Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
-3-
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. 07-20124-02-CM
DETENTION ORDER A.
Order for Detention.
On May 20, 2009, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara, conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based on the evidence and arguments presented during the hearing, the court granted the Government’s renewed motion for revocation of bond and for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors (doc. 165). The court’s reasons for detaining defendant are set forth in Sections B and C of this order. The court denied the alternative portion of the Government’s motion which asked for a mental evaluation of defendant to determine whether he is competent to stand trial; defendant opposed any such evaluation that would be conducted in a custodial setting. Defendant is very stubborn, but that surely does not render him incompetent. And arguably there is some basis to suggest defendant has “delusions” (or at least strongly held opinions, justified or not) about the Government’s counsel and witnesses conspiring against him. But nothing credible has yet been presented to the court indicating defendant suffers from any mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to understand the nature of the instant criminal proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense. Indeed, although it could be argued that defendant has pretty poor judgment and precious little common sense, his affect and behavior during court proceedings has been polite, attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at least average intelligence B.
Statement of Reasons for Detention.
The undersigned’s comments and findings from the bench on the record during the detention hearing are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, and as the ultimate reasons for detaining defendant, the court finds as follows: O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
: Most importantly, the court finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required. To be clear, the court does not believe defendant poses a flight risk in terms of physically fleeing the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduled court appearances. Rather, based on what has transpired to date, the court’s concern is with regard to defendant’s apparent refusal to comply in the future with a stipulated order dated July 30, 2008 concerning statements about Government counsel and witnesses, which order is an integral part of defendant’s conditions of release (doc. 118). Despite being specifically and repeatedly warned both by the court and defense counsel about such conduct being improper, defendant persists. Defendant has flagrantly violated the court’s order. Defendant shows no remorse. He only argues, though counsel: (1) that he feels “under siege”; (2) that any violation of the court’s order was “unintentional”; and (3) that perhaps another stern warning will serve to avoid violations of the court’s order in the future. The court will accept at face value defendant’s assertion that subjectively he feels under siege, something neither surprising nor unusual for anyone facing federal felony charges. The argument that defendant only may have unintentionally violated the court’s conditions of release simply is not credible. The record contains the fairly broad but still very clear language of the above-referenced stipulated order (doc. 118); significantly, the form of this order was not prepared by the court but rather negotiated by counsel and then signed by defendant last year to settle a pending bond revocation before the court was called upon to make its formal rulings after a lengthy and hotly contested detention hearing. Despite the clear restrictions in the July 30, 2008 order, defendant acknowledges he sent the e-mail “blast” dated April 22, 2009 that was admitted into evidence during the most recent hearing as Government’s Exhibit 1. The email clearly violates the court’s order. In setting and managing the conditions of release in this case, the court painstakingly has endeavored to be flexible, patient, lenient, and understanding with defendant. See docs. 65, 104-06, 110, 117-20, 131-32, 142, 147, and 150. Defendant has returned the court’s favor by being inflexible and obstinate. Unfortunately, it is now clear defendant cannot (or least will not) comply with the conditions that the court earlier imposed with his express agreement. : Alternatively, by clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community. Specifically, the court finds that defendant poses a serious risk of ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses. C.
Findings of Fact.
The court’s findings in connection with the decision to detain defendant are based on the evidence presented during the detention hearing, including the following:
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
-2-
: (1)
Nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the present case: Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; wire fraud; and money laundering.
: (2)
The record presented during earlier detention hearings indicates the Government has a fairly strong case against defendant.
: (3)
The history and characteristics of defendant, including: : Even though as earlier indicated the court believes defendant is competent to stand trial, he may have a mental condition which may affect whether he can or will comply with the court’s orders. : The pretrial services report submitted in connection with earlier detention hearings indicates defendant has a history relating to drug abuse. : The pretrial services report indicates defendant has a significant prior criminal record (although not as significant in many federal felony cases). : As earlier indicated, defendant has been warned repeatedly by the court and his own lawyer about the consequences of disobedience of the court’s conditions of release.
: (4)
D.
The threat of continued criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses if defendant were released poses a serious risk of danger to the community.
Additional Directives.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(i)(2)-(4), the court directs defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel of record in this case. On order of a court of the United States, or on request of any attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which defendant is confined shall deliver defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
Dated:
May 21, 2009
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
s/ James P. O’Hara James P. O’Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
-3-
