U.S. & People v. Matthias
| Decision Date | 27 April 2017 |
| Docket Number | Criminal Action No. 2016-0025 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS v. KAREEM MATTHIAS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
Attorneys:
Alphonso G. Andrews, Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
For the Government
Omodare Jupiter, Esq.,
St. Croix, U.S.V.I.
Brendan A. Hurson, Esq.,
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant's "Notice of Appeal of Detention Order"; Defendant's "Motion for Review and Revocation of Detention Order and Brief in Support"; and the Government's "Response to Motion for Review of Detention Order." (Dkt. Nos. 16, 17, 22). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Defendant's Appeal and Motion.
Defendant is charged by Information with the following seven counts: (1) Felon in Possession of a Firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); (2) Using a Firearm During a ViolentCrime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii); (3) three counts of Attempted Murder First Degree in violation of 14 V.I.C. §§ 922(a)(1) and 331(1) (Counts 3-5); (4) Reckless Endangerment First Degree in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 625(a); and (5) Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm in violation of 14 V.I.C. § 2253(a). (Dkt. No. 21).2
After the Government moved orally to detain Defendant pending trial, a detention hearing was held on October 7, 2016. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 3). At the hearing, the Government advised the Magistrate Judge that in support of its position for detention, the Government "would rely on the affidavit that was submitted as part of the complaint in this case, the charging document, the information in the pretrial services report as well as what has transpired during the initial advice of rights proceeding in this matter." (Id.).3
The affidavit of Task Force Officer Emanuel Turner, Jr. (the "Affidavit") states that on April 12, 2016, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Detective Kai Joseph received a report regarding the discharge of shots. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1). Upon arrival at the scene, Detective Joseph observed a blue Chevy Blazer with what appeared to be several bullet holes in it. (Id.). After several minutes at the scene, an individual later identified as Devon Benjamin-Edwards walked up to the vehicle and identified himself as the driver. (Id.). Mr. Benjamin-Edwards informed Detective Joseph that he,Jeremiah George, Vanessa Adams, and two children were in the vehicle when shots were fired at it. (Id. at 1-2).
Mr. Benjamin-Edwards was taken to the police station where he gave a video recorded statement. (Id. at 2). Mr. Benjamin-Edwards stated that while he and the other passengers were traveling north in his vehicle, a white Acura sedan cut him off. (Id.). The white sedan came to a stop and a black male who Mr. Benjamin-Edwards knows by the name of "Stinky" leaned out of the front passenger-side window and fired shots from a black handgun at Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle. (Id.). After hearing the shots, Mr. Benjamin-Edwards got out of his vehicle and ran north where he sought refuge at a nearby house. (Id.). Mr. Benjamin-Edwards stated that he knew "Stinky" from the Frederiksted area and had purchased marijuana from him in the past. (Id.).
Detective Joseph later made contact with Vanessa Adams, who was in the back seat of Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle along with two children. (Id.). She stated that she also observed a white Acura cut in front of Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle and heard shots being fired. (Id.). When she heard the shots, Ms. Adams grabbed the two children, exited the vehicle, and ran east near a baseball field where she called her boyfriend to pick her up. (Id.). Ms. Adams further stated that she was unable to clearly see the shooter from her position. (Id. at 2-3).
Detective Joseph was eventually able to contact the other adult passenger of Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle, Jeremiah George. (Id. at 3). In a video statement, Mr. George stated that he was the front passenger of Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle and that he put his head down as soon as he heard the gun shots being fired. (Id.). After he heard the shots, he exited Mr. Benjamin-Edwards' vehicle and helped Ms. Adams with one of the children. (Id.).
While there were no other witnesses, Detective D. Samuel stated that from prior cases it was known that Defendant Kareem Matthias is also known as "Stinky." (Id.). Based on thisinformation, Detective Joseph had another officer generate a photo array of six individuals—one of whom was Defendant. (Id.). Mr. Benjamin-Edwards was shown the photo array and asked whether the individuals that shot at him was in the photo array. (Id.). Mr. Benjamin-Edwards identified the male individual in photograph 3 as "Stinky," initialed the picture, and signed a form indicating the same. (Id.). The individual in photograph 3 is Defendant. (Id.).
A check with the Firearms Unit revealed that Defendant does not have a license to possess a firearm in the Virgin Islands. (Id. at 4). Additionally, a check of Defendant's credit history revealed that Defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands on November 23, 2010 of Grand Larceny, which is a felony. (Id. at 3). Defendant was sentenced to two years and one month of supervised probation with conditions. (Id.).
At the detention hearing, Defendant objected to the Government relying on the Affidavit and not producing some witness, which would allow for cross-examination. (Dkt. No. 19-1 at 3-4). For his part, Defendant indicated that he had no witnesses regarding whether there was probable cause to support the charges against him. (Id. at 4). After hearing arguments from both sides, the Magistrate Judge overruled Defendant's objection and found that, based on the Affidavit, there exists probable cause to support the charges in the Complaint—specifically, felony possession of a firearm, using a firearm during a crime of violence, attempted murder in the first degree, unauthorized possession of a firearm, and reckless endangerment with a firearm. (Id. at 10).
At the detention hearing, Defendant called Hermita Florent as a witness. (Id.). Ms. Florent testified that Defendant is her son and that, except for a four-month stay with his father off island, he has lived on St. Croix all of his life. Ms. Florent has another son, Ceyon Florent, who is 30 years old and lives with her. (Id. at 13-14). According to Ms. Florent, both she and her son Ceyon are willing to be third-party custodians for Defendant and allow him to live with them. (Id. at 16).Ms. Florent further testified that when she learned that the police were looking for Defendant, she got in touch with him. At her advice, Defendant turned himself into the police. (Id. at 15). Along with Ms. Florent, present in the courtroom during the detention hearing were Ceyon Florent; Ms. Florent's sister, Eupemia; her niece, Heidi Meyers; and her friend, Thelma Jameson. (Id. at 13). Ms. Florent also stated that she has one brother and two aunts, although Ms. Florent did not indicate where her brother and two aunts lived. (Id. at 17). Defendant proffered to the Magistrate Judge that Ceyon Florent would offer testimony consistent with that of Ms. Florent. (Id.).
In his "Order of Detention Pending Trial" issued on October 7, 2016, (the "Detention Order") the Magistrate Judge found that "[t]here is a rebuttable presumption [under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)] that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed . . . an offense under [§ 924(c)]." (Dkt. No. 10 at 2). The Detention Order states that "[D]efendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption." (Id.). The Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven by "clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community." (Id.).
In the instant Motion, Defendant requests that the Court revoke the Magistrate Judge's Detention Order. (Dkt. No. 17 at 1). In support of his position, Defendant raises the following three arguments: (1) the Magistrate Judge erred as a matter of law in finding that Count 2 of the Information (Using a Firearm During a Violent Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)) is supported by probable cause; (2) the Magistrate Judge erred as a matter of law in applying the rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 that no condition or combination of conditions willreasonably assure the safety of the community; and (3) regardless of whether the rebuttable presumption applies, the Government failed to meet its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that no set of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community. (Id. at 5). The majority of Defendant's Motion is focused on his contention that the rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 does not apply. Defendant argues that because the attempted murder and reckless endangerment counts with which Defendant is charged do not meet the definition of crime of violence under the categorical approach, there is no violation of § 924(c) and thus no rebuttable presumption. (See id. at 9-20).
In its Response, the Government asserts that the Information filed in this matter against Defendant, because it is the equivalent of an indictment, is sufficient to establish probable cause that Defendant committed the charged offenses. (Dkt. No. 22 at 5). The Government further asserts that attempted murder, even under the categorical approach, qualifies as a crime of violence and thus can serve as a predicate offense for the 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge. (Id. at 8-9). Because there is probable cause that Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the rebuttable presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142 applies. (...
To continue reading
Request your trial