United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S DETENTION
William J. Martinez United States District Judge
Government charges Defendant Jason Renander
(“Renander”) with three counts of producing child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) &
(e), and one count of transporting child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) & (b)(1).
(See ECF No. 1.)
December 4, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
ordered that Renander be detained pending trial. (ECF No.
13.) That prompted the motion currently before the Court,
namely, Renander's Motion for Revocation of Detention
Order (“Motion”). (ECF No. 20.) For the reasons
explained below, the Court denies the Motion.
DETENTION PRESUMPTIONS & STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court “shall order the detention of the [defendant]
before trial” if the Court 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.”
18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1). “Subject to rebuttal by
the [defendant], it shall be presumed that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the
appearance of the [defendant] as required and the safety of
the community if the judicial officer finds that there is
probable cause to believe that the person committed * * * an
offense involving a minor victim under section[s] . . . 2251
[or] 2252A(a)(1) . . . of [title 18 of the U.S. Code].”
Id. § 3142(e)(3)(E). This presumption applies
to Renander given the charges against him.
the presumption is invoked, the burden of production shifts
to the defendant. However, the burden of persuasion regarding
risk-of-flight and danger to the community always remains
with the government. The defendant's burden of production
is not heavy, but some evidence must be produced.”
United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1354-55
(10th Cir. 1991)
facts the judicial officer uses to support a finding . . .
that no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the
community shall be supported by clear and convincing
evidence.” Id. § 3142(f)(2). As for risk
of flight, the burden is preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 616 (10th
Cir. 2003). The Government bears the burden in both cases.
factors the Court “shall” consider when deciding
whether to grant pretrial release are:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
including whether the offense . . . involves a minor victim .
(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
(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
18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Also, the presumption of detention,
even if countered by the defendant with adequate evidence,
“remains a factor for consideration by the district
court in determining whether to release or detain.”
Stricklin, 932 F.2d at 1355.
a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, . . . the
person may file, with the [district court], a motion for
revocation or amendment of the order.” 18 U.S.C. §
3145(b). The district judge then reviews the magistrate
judge's decision de novo. Cisneros, 328
F.3d at 616 n.1.
De novo review, however, does not necessarily mean
holding an evidentiary hearing. Although a district court may
start from scratch and take evidence, it may also review the
evidence that was before the magistrate judge and make its
own independent determination as to whether the magistrate
judge's findings and detention order are correct. This is
a matter of discretion for the district court.
United States v. Romero, 2010 WL 11523871, at *2 (D.
Colo. May 17, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations