The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thomas M. Rose United States District Judge
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BOND (DOC. #18)
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to Defendant's Motion that he be released on bond (Doc. #18), filed November 10, 2006. This Court conducted a hearing on said Motion December 12, 2006. The Court has reviewed all pretrial service reports issued with regard to Donnell Cook as well as the presentation of counsel for both Mr. Cook and the Government. The Court also conducted an inquiry with Mr. Cook at said hearing.
Mr. Cook had previously requested bond in this matter from the Magistrate Judge and was refused. The basis given by the Magistrate Judge at that time was lack of an appropriate residential placement. Specifically, the placements did not reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant or the safety of the community. Subsequently, and prior to the hearing of this Motion, the Defendant has again proposed a residential placement in lieu of detention. This time the proposed placement is with the Defendant's aunt, Donna Casey, 1527 Dietzen Avenue, Dayton, Ohio. Pretrial services has concluded after an investigation that there is no problem with the residence.
However, the Court, after reviewing all documents, charges and information presented at the hearing still has grave concerns about the Defendant, his likelihood of appearing and the safety of the community.
In this case the charges against the Defendant presume that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant and the safety of the community if there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the offenses charged. Although the Defendant may rebut this presumption this Court concludes he has not.
In considering whether any condition or combination of conditions would assure Defendant's appearance and the safety of the community the Court must look at far more than a willing relative with an acceptable residence and a caring heart. Once the Court concludes that a proposed residence is acceptable, it must look to the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the weight of evidence against the person, the Defendant's history and characteristics and any danger the Defendant would pose to the community.
In this case, the offenses charged are very serious involving significant drugs and a weapon. Both a danger to the community. In addition to the gravity of the alleged offenses, the Court has serious concerns about the Defendant's ability to comply with its orders and /or conditions, if released and the likelihood he would appear at future proceedings. This concern is based upon numerous warrants issued in the past for this Defendant due to alleged non-appearance or failure to comply with a Court order. Defendant attempted to explain to the Court the circumstances surrounding the incidents he could remember but the explanations do not reassure the Court. It certainly does not contribute to overriding the presumption for detention in this case.
After considering all factors under 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)(1) thru (4), the Court does not find that any condition or combination of conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3142(c) would reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant as required and the safety of others and the community.
Defendant's Motion for Bond in Lieu of Detention is DENIED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw ...