United States v. Brundidge

• Docket Number: 3:23-cr-95-MCR-HTC
• Decision Date: 22 December 2023
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JEREMY M. BRUNDIDGE
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JEREMY M. BRUNDIDGE

No. 3:23-cr-95-MCR-HTC

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

December 22, 2023

ORDER OF DETENTION

HOPE THAI CANNON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 21, 2023 the Court held a hearing on the government's oral motion for detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, as amended, 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. Based upon the information contained in the pretrial services report, the evidence presented at the hearing, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds Defendant shall be detained pending trial because there are no conditions or combination of conditions which will reasonably assure Defendant will not be a risk of flight or a danger to the safety of the community if released.

I. The Bail Reform Act

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 provides a framework for determining whether pretrial detention is appropriate. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Under the Act, a court must order a defendant be detained if, after hearing, it finds that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure [the defendant's] appearance ... and the safety of any other person in the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1);

2

United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir. 1988). A finding of risk of flight must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, while a finding of danger must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See United States v. Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir. 1990).

“Clear and convincing evidence” entails more than a preponderance of the evidence, but less than evidence establishing a fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423-25 (1979); Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316 (1984) (clear and convincing evidence is evidence which induces “an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are ‘highly probable'”). “To find danger to the community under this standard of proof requires that the evidence support such a conclusion with a high degree of certainty.” Chimurenga, 760 F.2d at 405. Additionally, “danger to the community” does not refer to simply risk of physical violence; instead, it includes a danger that the defendant might engage in criminal activity that is a detriment to the community. See United States v. Ingram, 415 F.Supp.3d 1072, 1077 (N.D. Fla. 2019) (collecting cases). Danger to the community, thus, includes “the harm to society caused by narcotic trafficking.” Id.

Although the burden of proof generally falls on the government, when probable cause is established in certain cases, a rebuttable presumption of detention arises that no such conditions exist. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). Those cases are

3

identified in 3142(e)(3) and include an offense “for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act.” Id. In a rebuttable presumption case, the defendant bears the burden of production - that is the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption. See e.g., United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2d Cir. 2001)); United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). While the burden is not a heavy one, even if it is met, the presumption nonetheless remains a factor for the court to consider. See United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1354, 1355 (10th Cir. 1991). Also, even in a rebuttable presumption case the burden of persuasion remains with the government. See id. at 1354-55; Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 436.

This is a rebuttable presumption case because Defendant is charged with a felony drug offense, which carries a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 10 years. “The rebuttable presumption in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) exists to advance Congress's belief that those charged with serious drug crimes are necessarily a danger to the community and should be detained to protect the public, absent a showing by the defendant that he is not a danger to the community.” United States v. Kidd, 2013 WL 142317, at *3 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 11, 2013).

To determine whether a defendant should be released on conditions or detained, courts consider the following factors: (1) the nature and circumstances of

4

the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence, (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Although § 3142(g) identifies the factors the courts should consider, it says nothing about the relative weight a court should give them when deciding whether to release or detain a defendant. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). Instead, the weight given to each factor will inevitably vary from case to case and might even vary depending on whether the inquiry relates to a defendant's danger or to his risk of flight. United States v. Zhang, 55 F.4th 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2022). The judicial officer is given “substantial latitude in determining whether pretrial detention is appropriate.” King, 849 F.2d at 487.

II. Analysis

Considering the § 3142(g) factors, and for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds there are no conditions or combination of conditions that could be imposed which would reasonably assure the Court Defendant will not be a danger to the community or a risk of nonappearance.

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Charged.

When considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the court considers “whether the offense is a crime of violence, a violation of section 1591, a

5

Federal crime of terrorism, or involves a minor victim or a controlled substance, firearm, explosive, or destructive device.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1).

Here, Defendant has been indicted by the grand jury of the following felony offenses: Count 1 charges Defendant with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance involving 400 grams or more of fentanyl, and 500 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine, and carries a penalty that includes a minimum mandatory term of 10 years' incarceration to a maximum term of life and Count 4 charges Defendant with conspiracy to use a communication facility in the furtherance of a felony, which carries a penalty of up to 4 years' imprisonment.

The possession, use, and distribution of illegal drugs represent “one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population.” Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 668 (1989). Drug distribution causes “grave harm to society.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1002 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part). A “seller of addictive drugs may inflict greater bodily harm upon members of society than the person who commits a single assault.” Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 296...