United States v. Beard

• Decision Date: 23 March 2021
• Docket Number: MJ No. 1:21-MJ-02082
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Rodric BEARD, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

528 F.Supp.3d 764

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Rodric BEARD, Defendant.

MJ No. 1:21-MJ-02082

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Signed March 23, 2021

Khalida A. Sims, Catherine Adinaro Shusky, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Northern District of Ohio, 750 Skylight Office Tower, 1660 West Second Street, Cleveland, OH 44113, for Defendant.

Robert J. Kolansky, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Northern District of Ohio, Ste. 400, 801 Superior Avenue, W, Cleveland, OH 44113, for Plaintiff.

OPINION AND ORDER

J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge

This appeal from the decision of the Magistrate Judge denying detention of Rodric Beard pending trial presents close and difficult questions. Consistent with the Constitution's protection of liberty, federal law favors release, unless the defendant presents a flight risk or presents a danger to himself or others. Congress has declared that certain offenses carry a rebuttable presumption of dangerousness, and Mr. Beard faces charges (for distribution and possession of controlled substances with the intent to distribute) giving rise to such a presumption. Even then, given the centrality of liberty to our constitutional order and the presumption of innocence, the United States must prove by clear and convincing evidence that detention is warranted.

Here, like the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds that Mr. Beard has rebutted the presumption in favor of detention with sufficient evidence. Still, Congress's judgment retains evidentiary force, and the United States presents evidence that Mr. Beard poses a danger to the community. One of the difficulties of this case is that Mr. Beard poses a danger of largely middling and non-violent criminal activity. And detention works a great disadvantage to Mr. Beard as he prepares his defense and attempts to show the Court that an appropriate sentence might be something less than what the guidelines ultimately recommend (assuming any conviction does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence). But the Court cannot say that the criminal activity in which Mr. Beard has allegedly engaged does not count as dangerous within the meaning of the statute, even though non-violent. Then, the question becomes whether the United States has carried its burden by clear and convincing evidence. Though that question is close, the Court believes it has. For these reasons as more fully explained below, the Court REVOKES the order of the Magistrate Judge setting bond and ORDERS the detention of Rodric Beard pending trial.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Beard was arrested on March 3, 2021 on a criminal complaint alleging he violated the Controlled Substances Act on three occasions, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The complaint (ECF No. 1) includes an affidavit from a special agent for Homeland Security Investigations who is a former police officer and narcotics detective in Lorain, Ohio, where Mr. Beard is a lifelong resident (ECF No. 1-1). The affiant sets forth facts establishing his belief that there is probable cause Mr. Beard committed the charged offenses. (ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 3, PageID #2–3.) He describes three controlled purchases of fentanyl from Mr. Beard a reliable confidential informant made on December 29, 2020, January 4, 2021, and January 7, 2021. The confidential informant initiated each purchase by making a controlled and recorded phone call to Mr. Beard, then meeting Mr. Beard in person to complete the exchange. (Id. , ¶¶ 4, 12 & 20, PageID #3, 5 & 7.)

After the third controlled sale, Lorain Police narcotics detectives arrested Mr. Beard. (Id. , ¶ 28, PageID #9.) In a search incident to arrest, detectives found $1,225 cash along with $40 from the controlled buy earlier that day. (Id. , ¶ 29.) Detectives also found two cell phones that rang when the officers dialed the numbers called to initiate the controlled buys. (Id. ) Officers conducted a strip search and discovered several plastic bags containing narcotics. (Id. , ¶ 32, PageID #9–10.) Lab results returned in February 2021, after Mr. Beard's arrest, confirmed the substances purchased at each controlled buy included fentanyl and other controlled substances. (Id. , ¶¶ 11, 19 & 27, PageID #5, 6 & 8.) In total, the quantity of illicit drugs at issue in the three controlled sales amounted to approximately 0.77 grams. (Id. )

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On March 3, 2021, the United States filed a criminal complaint charging Mr. Beard with distribution and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). (ECF No. 1.) Federal authorities arrested him that day, and Mr. Beard appeared in federal court by video after his arrest. At Mr. Beard's initial appearance, the United States moved for Mr. Beard's pretrial detention.

The Magistrate Judge held a detention hearing on March 8, 2021. Based on the waiver of the preliminary hearing and the information before it, the court found "sufficient probable cause to believe that the violations alleged in the criminal complaint were committed by the defendant" and bound over the matter to the grand jury. (ECF No. 1 5, PageID #51:4–10.) A grand jury has not yet convened to consider an indictment.

A. The Detention Hearing

The United States proffered the pretrial services report and the affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint (ECF No. 1-1). In addition, it proffered two exhibits. The first was a Lorain Police Narcotics Investigation Report, dated February 25, 2017, detailing the facts underlying a State case in which Mr. Beard was convicted of corrupting another with drugs, a second-degree felony under Ohio law, and trafficking in heroin, a fifth-degree felony, and sentenced to two years in prison. (ECF No. 17-1.) Mr. Beard was 23 at the time. (ECF No. 15, PageID #53:11-22.) The corruption charge was the result of Mr. Beard selling drugs that resulted in a fatal overdose. (Id. , PageID #59:16–24.)

The second exhibit proffered was a Lorain Police Department Field Case Report, dated February 25, 2021, explaining the facts underlying a charge of receiving stolen property, a fourth-degree felony under State law. (ECF No. 15, PageID #53:23–54:1–8; ECF No. 17-2.) Leading up to that charge, Mr. Beard was involved in a car accident and was apprehended a short distance away, fleeing from the scene while released on bond from the State court charges that led to this federal matter. (ECF No. 15, PageID #65:15–25.) Defense counsel pointed out, however, that he was not charged with fleeing or eluding law enforcement after the incident. (Id. , PageID #70:13–23.)

The United States also proffered facts related to Mr. Beard's 2012 conviction for felonious assault, a second-degree felony, for which he was sentenced to two years of community control (probation) and 90 days in jail. The United States stated the conviction arose from gang-related activity in Lorain during which Mr. Beard "provided a handgun to another individual who subsequently fired multiple shots at three individuals in a vehicle ...." (Id. , PageID #54:17–24.)

The United States argued Mr. Beard did not produce evidence to rebut a presumption of danger and urged the Court to detain Mr. Beard. (Id. , PageID #57:1–6.) In support of detention, the United States argued that (1) Mr. Beard is charged with distributing dangerous controlled substances; (2) the serious nature of the crimes charged and possible "lengthy prison sentence if convicted" presents a risk of flight; (3) the evidence in support of the charged conduct demonstrates he is a danger to the community; (4) he sold drugs in three controlled purchases and was in possession of additional drugs and money when arrested at a time when he was on supervision by the Adult Parole Authority in Ohio for his prior convictions of corrupting another with drugs and trafficking in drugs; (5) Mr. Beard appears to be in good physical and mental health without strong evidence of any current drug addictions; (6) his family ties to the community "have done very little to stop him from engaging in this very dangerous conduct"; (7) he is currently unemployed since March 2020 and has no financial resources; (8) his prior 2012 conviction for felonious assault related to local gang activity; (9) there is some record of failing to appear for court and probation dates; and (10) he was "arrested fleeing from a stolen vehicle" while on bond. (Id. , PageID #57:14–64:20.)

Mr. Beard proffered the pretrial services report, highlighting its recommendation of bond for Mr. Beard. (Id. , PageID #55:10–13.) In addition, defense counsel proffered Mr. Beard's "history, residence, and daily ties and connection with the community" as described in the pretrial services report. (Id. , PageID #54:14–16.) During argument, defense counsel represented that Mr. Beard has been compliant with his post-release control, other than the conduct giving rise to the charges at issue in federal court. Following his release from prison in May 2019, defense counsel represented that Mr. Beard was employed at a temp agency until March 2020, when the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in his unemployment. (Id. , PageID #68:16–21.) With respect to danger to the community, defense counsel stated, "we can't dispute his record." (Id. , PageID #67:21.) But counsel emphasized that the pretrial services report nevertheless recommended conditional release and urged the court not to punish Mr. Beard now for past criminal conduct. (Id. , PageID #67:22–23.)

The pretrial services representative did not offer any additional information for the court to consider. (Id. , PageID 56:3–7.)

After the close of arguments, the Magistrate Judge found probable cause to support the allegations in the criminal complaint and, as a result, that he must consider the statutory rebuttable presumption in favor of detention. (Id. , PageID #71:8–20.) The Magistrate Judge went on to find that Mr. Beard presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. (Id. ,...