United States v. Hazzard, 84 CR 771.
Decision Date | 11 December 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 84 CR 771.,84 CR 771. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Kevin Sidney HAZZARD, Byron Randolph and Kevin Stephens, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Robert L. Graham, Jenner & Block, Chicago, Ill., for Hazzard.
Ronald G. Draper and Nathaniel R. Howse, Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
Joseph Hartzler, Lawrence Rosenthal, Asst. U.S. Attys., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
Defendant Kevin Sidney Hazzard has moved to revoke or amend an order entered by a United States magistrate on October 23, 1984 ordering his pretrial preventive detention pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984 ("the Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 3141, et seq. Section 3145(b) of the Act provides that if a person is ordered detained by a magistrate he may file with the court having original jurisdiction of the offense a motion for revocation or amendment of the order. The Act requires that the motion shall be determined promptly.1
Hazzard contends that the detention order should be reversed and reasonable bail set for one or more of the following reasons:
On October 12, 1984 the Bail Reform Act became law as Chapter II of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Because of new interrelated provisions pertaining to detention hearings, it is appropriate to set forth at the outset the parts of the Act which govern this proceeding:
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
On October 15, 1984, defendant Hazzard and co-defendants Byron Randolph and Kevin Stephens were charged in a complaint filed with a magistrate with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1): namely, abduction and kidnapping from Calumet, Illinois to Gary, Indiana for the purpose of sexual activity. A hearing was held on October 23, 1984.2
The evidence before the magistrate which relates to Hazzard was presented by the affidavit and oral testimony of Agent Harris of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who investigated a case of abduction of five young women in the vicinity of Gino's Liquor Store in Calumet City, Illinois on October 6, 1984. According to a statement made to him by one of the victims, two persons (later identified as defendants Hazzard and Randolph) armed with a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun entered a van in which the victims were present, robbed them at gunpoint and took control of the van. One of the perpetrators drove the van to Hammond, Indiana. Upon reaching Hammond, the van was stopped at a railroad crossing and two of the victims, taking advantage of the opportunity created by the crossing stop, were able to escape.
The van was driven to Gary where it was parked. The defendant Stephens, having followed the van in an automobile, entered the van and the victims were ordered to perform sexual acts at gunpoint and then they were raped by all three defendants. One victim was beaten. The agent testified to seeing abrasions on one of the victims he interviewed.
On October 15, 1984, one of the victims...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Gallo, 86-CR-452 (JBW).
...(N.D.N.Y.1985), app. dism'd, 783 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.1986); United States v. Hall, 651 F.Supp. 13 (N.D.N.Y.1985); United States v. Hazzard, 598 F.Supp. 1442, 1451 n. 5 (N.D.Ill.1984). In United States v. Colombo, 777 F.2d 96 (2d Cir.1985), the Second Circuit explicitly agreed with this court th......
-
U.S. v. Affleck
...1436, 1438 (N.D.Ill.1985); see also United States v. Chiattello, 599 F.Supp. 970, 971-72 (N.D.Ind.1985); United States v. Hazzard, 598 F.Supp. 1442, 1454 n. 8 (N.D.Ill.1984); United States v. Kowal, 596 F.Supp. 375, 376 (D.Conn.1984); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 110......
-
U.S. v. Melendez-Carrion
...United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1332 (D.C.App.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1002 (1982); United States v. Hazzard, 598 F.Supp. 1442, 1451 (N.D.Ill.1984). Congress carefully incorporated the analysis of Edwards in the Bail Reform Act. The nonpunitive intent is further illu......
-
Faheem-El v. Klincar, 84 C 2561.
...18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq., lower courts have held that there is no Eighth Amendment right to bail. See e.g. United States v. Hazzard, 598 F.Supp. 1442, 1448-1450 (N.D.Ill.1984). See also United States v. DiVarco, 602 F.Supp. 1029, 1033-34 (N.D.Ill.1985). Courts have also held, with some cons......
-
The Bail Reform Act of 1984: an Update on Preventive Detention
...Judiciary Act § 33, 1 Stat. 91 (1789). 17. See, e.g., Stack, supra, note 14; Pugh v. Rainwater, 557 F.2d 1189, 1194 (5th Cir. 1977). 18. 598 F.Supp. 1442 (N.D. 111. 1984). 19. Supra, note 15. 20. 104 S.Ct. 2403, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984). 21. See, e.g., U.S. v. Ricketson, 498 F.2d 367 (7th Cir.......