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. Jaramillo

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 31, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
2. LAURA LYNN JARAMILLO, Defendant.

          ORDER

          PHILIP A. BRIMMER United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on defendant Laura Lynn Jaramillo's Motion for Revocation or Amendment of New Mexico Magistrate Judge's Order of Detention [Docket No. 117] of Magistrate Judge Kevin R. Sweazea's Order of Detention Pending Trial [Docket No. 70 at 24], entered on October 23, 2018 in the District of New Mexico, where the defendant was arrested pursuant to a District of Colorado arrest warrant. The United States has filed a response [Docket No. 127].

         Defendant seeks revocation of the magistrate judge's detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) and requests a de novo hearing. Docket No. 117 at 9.

         Requirements for Detention Under the Bail Reform Act

         Under the Bail Reform Act, a defendant may be detained pending trial only if a judicial officer 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). The government bears the burden of proof at a detention hearing. Id. The government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and must prove dangerousness to any person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

         In deciding whether there are conditions of release that would assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community, the magistrate judge must consider the following factors:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a Federal crime of terrorism, 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 person's release. . . .

         Count One of the indictment charges the defendant, among others, with a conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. This count carries a ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Therefore, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(3)(3)(A), Count One has a rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention. In order to overcome this presumption, a defendant must produce some evidence to rebut the presumption. United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir. 1991). Although a defendant may present such evidence, the Court may nevertheless take the presumption into account as a factor in determining whether detention is appropriate. The defendant is also charged with three other counts (use of a communications device in connection with drug trafficking; interstate travel in aid of racketeering; and possession with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine).

         The Order of Detention [Docket No. 70 at 24-26] found that the rebuttable presumption of detention applied and concluded that the government proved by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release would reasonably assure the safety of the community and proved by a preponderance of the evidence that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the defendant's appearance. The magistrate judge additionally found that (a) the weight of the evidence against the defendant was strong; (b) she was subject to lengthy detention if convicted; (c) ...


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.