United States v. Kennedy

Citation449 F.Supp.3d 713
Decision Date27 March 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 18-20315
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Keith KENNEDY (D-3), Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Jihan M. Williams, Julie A. Beck, United States Attorney's Office, Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Federal Community Defender, Federal Defender Office, Robert F. Kinney, III, Detroit, MI, for Defendant.

ORDER TEMPORARILY REVOKING DETENTION

JUDITH E. LEVY, United States District Judge On March 11, 2020 Magistrate Judge David Grand detained Defendant Keith Kennedy subject to a bond review hearing before Judge Judith Levy. (See ECF No. 71.) Judge Grand detained Defendant due to several violations of his pretrial release conditions, including the following: failing several drug screens, failing to report to pretrial services, failing to report to inpatient substance abuse treatment, and failing to report for a bond review hearing. (See id. ; ECF No. 58.) On March 26, 2020, the Court conducted a bond reviewing hearing of Defendant's confinement at the Saginaw County Jail. The hearing took place telephonically due to federal, state, and court stay-at-home directives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court is authorized to revisit the Magistrate Judge's order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). As set forth below, the Court finds that it is necessary to temporarily release Defendant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(4), see infra pg. 8, for two reasons. First, under the facts of this case, the danger posed to Defendant in the Saginaw County Jail by the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an independent compelling reason to temporarily release him from custody. Second, temporary release is necessary for Defendant to prepare his pre-sentencing defense.

BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2020, the Governor of Michigan issued the following statement: "The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) is a respiratory disease that can result in serious illness or death. It is caused by a new strain of coronavirus not previously identified in humans and easily spread from person to person. There is currently no approved vaccine or antiviral treatment for this disease." Executive Order, No. 2020-20 (Mar. 22, 2020).

Since March 11, 2020, the date of Defendant's hearing before Magistrate Judge Grand, the exceptionally dangerous nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has become apparent. On March 10, 2020, the Governor of Michigan announced the state's first two cases of COVID-19 and simultaneously declared a State of Emergency. Executive Order, No. 2020-4 (Mar. 10, 2020). The number of new cases is growing exponentially. As of March 27, 2020, that number is now at 3,657 confirmed cases and 92 known related deaths. See Coronavirus, Michigan.Gov, https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/0,9753,7-406-98163-520743--,00.html. COVID-19 has a high risk of transmission, and the number and rate of confirmed cases indicate broad community spread. Executive Order, No. 2020-20 (Mar. 22, 2020). Indeed, as of March 27, 2020, Michigan jails are attempting to lower their detained populations "as officials scramble to remove people thought to be at high risk of contracting the coronavirus, but little risk to the general public if they were not behind bars." James David Dickson, Jail populations plunge in Metro Detroit as coronavirus spreads , Detroit News (March 27, 2020), https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2020/03/27/jail-populations-plunge-metro-detroit-coronavirus-spreads/2914358001/. Defendant's case fits this description.

On March 23, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged that correctional and detention facilities "present[ ] unique challenges for control of COVID-19 transmission among incarcerated/detained persons, staff, and visitors." Interim Guidance on Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Correctional and Detention Facilities , Centers for Disease Control (Mar. 23, 2020), https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/correction-detention/guidance-correctional-detention.html [Hereinafter "CDC Guidance 3/23/2020"]. Specifically, the CDC noted that many detention conditions create a heightened risk of danger to detainees. These include: low capacity for patient volume, insufficient quarantine space, insufficient on-site medical staff, highly congregational environments, inability of most patients to leave the facility, and limited ability of incarcerated/detained persons to exercise effective disease prevention measures (e.g., social distancing and frequent handwashing). Id.

The CDC recommended that all correctional facilities take preventative measures, including: ensuring an adequate supply of hygiene and medical supplies, allowing for alcohol-based sanitizer throughout facilities, providing no-cost soap to all inmates for frequent handwashing, cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces several times per day, performing pre-intake screening and temperature checks for all new entrants, increasing space between all detained persons to at least six feet, staggering meals, and having healthcare staff perform regular rounds. Id. Even if all of the CDC's interim recommendations are followed, and this record suggests that they are not, the Court is concerned that such measures will prove insufficient to stem deadly outbreaks. See , e.g. , New York City Board of Correction Calls for City to Begin Releasing People From Jail as Part of Public Health Response to COVID-19 , N.Y.C. Bd. of Corr. (Mar. 17, 2020), https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/boc/downloads/pdf/News/2020.03.17% 20-% 20Board% 20of% 20Correction% 20Statement% 20re% 20Release.pdf (arguing that, despite the "heroic work" of Department of Correction and Correctional Health Services staff "to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in the jails and maintain safe and humane operations, the City must drastically reduce the number of people in jail right now and limit new admissions to exceptional circumstances"). Indeed, on March 26, 2020, Attorney General Barr issued a separate directive ordering the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to "prioritiz[e] home confinement as appropriate in response to the COVID-19 pandemic ... to protect the health and safety of BOP personnel and the people in our custody." Prioritization of Home Confinement as Appropriate in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic , Att'y Gen. (Mar. 26, 2020).

Research shows that prisoners and jail inmates are more likely than the general population to report experiencing infectious diseases, indicating that these individuals face a heightened risk during this pandemic.1 Laura M. Maruschak et al., Medical Problems of State and Federal Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12 , U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2016), https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mpsfpji1112.pdf.

By way of example, Michigan prisons are beginning to prepare "contingency plans" for extreme outbreaks, but the evidence suggests that it is only a matter of time before a deadly outbreak occurs for which the prison system is woefully unprepared. See id. ( [The Michigan Department of Corrections spokesperson] "said administrators haven't projected how many inmates might eventually contract the highly contagious virus, and he didn't immediately know how much quarantine space is available throughout the prison network.") Because many individuals infected with COVID-19 do not display symptoms, the virus will almost certainly be present in jails and prisons before cases are formally identified.

During the March 26 hearing, Defendant credibly testified that he has conditions which render him particularly vulnerable to COVID-19. Defendant, who was audibly ill with congestion and who coughed intermittently throughout the call, testified that he is exhibiting flu-like symptoms. Defendant also credibly testified that Saginaw County Jail has not been treating his underlying conditions or his flu-like symptoms. He testified that, prior to detainment, he was on high blood pressure

medication, thyroid medication, and blood sugar medication. Despite these conditions and symptoms, Defendant testified that he was not being provided with these medications, not having his blood pressure taken regularly, not having his thyroid tested, not having his temperature taken regularly, and unable to access to tissues into which he could sneeze or cough.2 Defendant also testified that the detainees had no access to hand sanitizer and were instead provided with a small bar of soap once a week.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Where a detention order has been issued, the Court is permitted to issue a "subsequent order" temporarily releasing an individual in custody "to the extent that the judicial officer determines such release to be necessary for the preparation of the person's defense or for another compelling reason." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(4). While the language of § 3142(i)(4) appears under the heading "Release or detention of a defendant pending trial," this provision applies to Defendant even though he has pled guilty and is thus pending sentencing rather than trial. The language specifies that the Court may permit temporary release "by subsequent order." Id. The Court's current directive is a "subsequent order," issued subsequent to a prior detainment order under 18 U.S.C. § 3142.3

United States v. Thornton , 787 F.2d 594, 594 (6th Cir. 1986) (Table decision) (suggesting that a district court could temporarily release a detainee pursuant to § 3142(i)(4) by subsequent order even after a prior order holding that the detainee was a flight risk or a risk to public safety); United States v. Dante Stephens , No. 15-cr-0095, 447 F.Supp.3d 63, 67-68 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2020) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(4) constitutes a "separate statutory ground" for post-conviction release).

For the reasons below, the Court finds that temporary pretrial release is necessary for the compelling reason that it will protect Defendant, the prison population, and the wider community during...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Ochoa v. Kolitwenzew
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • 2 June 2020
    ...not be possible if they are forced to wait until their particular facility records a confirmed case."); United States v. Kennedy, 449 F.Supp.3d 713, 719 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020) ("[W]aiting for either Defendant to have a confirmed case of COVID-19, or for there to be a major outbreak in D......
  • Davis v. Washington
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 23 March 2022
    ...premise of that response. As the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan noted in United States v. Kennedy, 449 F.Supp.3d 713 (E.D. Mich. 2020): On March 23, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control Prevention (CDC) acknowledged that correctional and detention facilit......
  • Oliver Nissan Awshana v. Adducci
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 9 April 2020
    ...effective disease prevention measures (e.g., social distancing and frequent handwashing)." United States v. Kennedy , No. 18-20315, 449 F.Supp.3d 713, 716 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020) (Levy, J.).Both detention facilities at issue — Calhoun and St. Clair — are located within jail complexes whe......
  • Perez-Perez v. Adducci
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 9 May 2020
    ...effective disease prevention measures (e.g., social distancing and frequent handwashing)." United States v. Kennedy , No. 18-20315, 449 F.Supp.3d 713, 715–16 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020).Perez-Perez contends that he is particularly susceptible to COVID-19-related complications as a 41-year-ol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • PANDEMIC RULES: COVID-19 AND THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT'S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 72 No. 3, March 2022
    • 22 March 2022
    ...vulnerable ICE detainee in a county jail during the COVID-19 pandemic would violate the Fifth Amendment); United States v. Kennedy, 449 F. Supp. 3d 713, 719 (E.D. Mich. 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 2:18-cr20315, 2020 WL 1547878, at *1, 3, 4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 1, 2020) (ordering the defe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT