U.S.A v. Stone
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 10-20123-001,No. 10-1618,10-1618,10-20123-001 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant v.David Brian Stone; Joshua Matthew Stone; Joshua John Clough; Michael David Meeks; Thomas William Piatek, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Kathleen Moro Nesi, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Arthur Jay Weiss, ARTHUR J. WEISS & ASSOCIATES, Farmington Hills, Michigan, James C. Thomas, PLUNKETT COONEY, Detroit, Michigan, Randall C. Roberts, LAW OFFICE, Ann Arbor, Michigan, William W. Swor, LAW OFFICES, Detroit, Michigan, Mark A. Satawa, KIRSCH & SATAWA, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Patricia Gaedeke, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Arthur Jay Weiss, ARTHUR J. WEISS & ASSOCIATES, Farmington Hills, Michigan, James C. Thomas, PLUNKETT COONEY, Detroit, Michigan, Randall C. Roberts, LAW OFFICE, Ann Arbor, Michigan, William W. Swor, LAW OFFICES, Detroit, Michigan, Mark A. Satawa, KIRSCH & SATAWA, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellees.
Before: MARTIN, KETHLEDGE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
MARTIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which KETHLEDGE, J., joined. WHITE, J. (pp. 19-21), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The government appeals the district court's decision to release defendants David Stone, Sr., Joshua Stone, Joshua Clough, Michael Meeks, and Thomas Piatek on bail pending their trial for conspiracy to levy war against or to oppose by force the authority of the United States government and related offenses. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's decision and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Over a period of about 18 months, the government investigated defendants, who are members of a group called the Michigan Hutaree. Members of the Hutaree acquired a significant arsenal of weapons, including components of pipe bombs, and trained as a paramilitary organization. The Hutaree solicited the assistance of an explosives expert, who was an undercover FBI agent. After the government obtained information that the Hutaree were planning and preparing for what they referred to as a "real op", which specifically contemplated murdering civilians and law enforcement officers, the FBI brought its evidence before a grand jury. On March 23, 2010, the grand jury found probable cause to believe that defendants had: (1) agreed to oppose by force the government and the laws of the United States; (2) attempted to obtain the explosive devices and weapons of mass destruction that would be used to carry out the planned attacks; and (3) used, carried, and possessed firearms in furtherance of these crimes.
In the original indictment, 1 defendants were charged with seditious conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2384 (count one), attempt to use weapons of mass destruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2332a(a)(2) (count two), and two counts of carrying andusing firearms during and in relation to the crimes of violence charged in counts one and two, as well as possessing firearms in furtherance of those predicate crimes of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) ().2 David Stone, Sr., was also charged in count three with teaching/demonstrating the use of destructive devices in furtherance of the federal crime of violence charged in count one.
Defendants were arrested over the weekend of March 27-28, 2010, except for Joshua Stone, who was not arrested until the night of March 29, 2010 after a two-day standoff with the authorities. All defendants but Piatek appeared in Detroit for their arraignments and a bond determination on March 30, 2010. After a two-day hearing, the magistrate judge ordered that defendants be detained pending trial. Piatek appeared in the Northern District of Indiana and was ordered detained by a magistrate judge there.
All defendants appealed the detention orders to the district court, which conducted a two-day de novo hearing on April 27-28, 2010. The district court reversed the magistrates' rulings and ordered that defendants be released, subject to specified conditions. The government moved for a stay of the district court's order releasing defendants pending appeal to this court. The district court granted a limited stay, but it then dissolved that stay and again ordered that defendants be released.
The government immediately appealed and also sought a temporary stay of the district court's order pending a review of the merits. A panel of this Court granted a temporary stay on May 10, 2010. At issue now is the order releasing defendants, 3 for whom the government contends that there are no conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of the community.
We review the district court's factual findings for clear error, but we consider mixed questions of law and fact including the ultimate question whether detention is warranted de novo. United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985).
Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3142, upheld by the Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), 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). A judicial officer's finding of dangerousness must be "supported by clear and convincing evidence." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(b). The default position of the law, therefore, is that a defendant should be released pending trial.
That default is modified, however, for certain, particularly dangerous defendants. Specifically, when a "judicial officer finds that there is probable cause to believe" that a defendant committed one of the crimes listed in section 3142(e)(3), there is a presumption in favor of detention: "Subject to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). A grand jury indictment, by itself, establishes probable cause to believe that a defendant committed the crime with which he is charged. Hazime, 762 F.2d at 37. Thus, when the government presents an indictment including charges listed in section 3142(e)(3), it has fulfilled its burden to establish the presumption in favor of detention.
As our sister circuits have found, section 3142(e)(3)'s presumption in favor of detention imposes only a "burden of production" on the defendant, and the government retains the "burden of persuasion." See, e.g., United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 764 (7th Cir. 1985). A defendant satisfies his burden of production when he "com[es] forward with evidencethat he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436. Although a defendant's burden of production "is not heavy," he must introduce at least some evidence. United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 950 F.2d 85, 88 (2d Cir. 1991) ().
Even when a defendant satisfies his burden of production, however, "the presumption favoring detention does not disappear entirely, but remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court." Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436. The presumption remains as a factor because it is not simply an evidentiary tool designed for the courts. Instead, the presumption reflects Congress's substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial. See United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O'Brien, 895 F.2d 810 (1st Cir. 1990), ("Congress intended magistrates and judges, who typically focus only upon the particular cases before them, to take account of the more general facts that Congress found"); see also United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (). To rebut the presumption, therefore, a defendant should "present all the special features of his case" that take it outside "the congressional paradigm[.]" Jessup, 757 F.2d at 387.
Regardless of whether the presumption applies, the government's ultimate burden is to prove that no conditions of release can assure that the defendant will appear and to assure the safety of the community. In determining whether the government has met that burden of persuasion, the court must consider certain factors:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence,... 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial