United States v. Mendez
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-CV-10459-RWZ |
| Citation | 478 F.Supp.3d 152 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. Luis MENDEZ |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Glenn A. MacKinlay, Philip A. Mallard, Nicholas A. Soivilien, Rachel Goldstein, Mark J. Grady, United States Attorney's Office MA, Emily O. Cannon, U.S. Attorney's Office, Boston, MA, for United States.
Scott Lauer, Federal Public Defender Office District of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, for Respondent.
ZOBEL, S.D.J.
Luis Mendez is charged with one count of conspiracy to conduct enterprise affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The government moved for detention on four grounds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).1 The Magistrate Judge held a detention hearing on May 20, 2020 and subsequently denied defendant's release. Mr. Mendez appealed that order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b).
The review of a Magistrate Judge's detention decision is de novo. See United States v. Tortora, 922 F.2d 880, 883 n.4 (1st Cir. 1990). "If ... 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, [the court] shall order the detention of the person before trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). "Generally, it is the government's burden to persuade the court that pretrial detention is warranted." United States v. Riley, 322 F. Supp. 3d 242, 243 (D. Mass. 2018). And it must prove that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community by clear and convincing evidence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). Further, because the defendant has been convicted within the last five years of a state offense equivalent to one under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. , with a maximum punishment of ten years or more and he committed that offense while on pretrial release, a rebuttable presumption arises that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2).
The review of the detention order requires examination of the factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) : the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence; the weight of the evidence; defendant's history and characteristics; and the nature and seriousness of the danger that defendant's release would pose to any other person or the community.
I have examined the evidence presented at the Magistrate Judge's hearing, which consisted of an affidavit by a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; various police reports; a video of defendant participating in an assault that led to a shooting; a recording and transcript of defendant's phone call with another alleged gang member about dissuading those victims from testifying; and a transcript of a different call in which defendant describes prodding a fellow alleged gang member to claim ownership of drugs that Mr. Mendez has been charged in state court with possessing. The government also submitted to this court a video of a beating at which defendant was present.
The most troubling of Mr. Mendez's alleged activities occurred in New Bedford, Massachusetts on May 29, 2018, when he and three other men surrounded a car and slashed its tires, shortly after which a fifth man shot at the car's occupants. Even if defendant was unaware that a gun would be involved, as he argues, the incident is alarming. This was not a fight between rival gangs; rather, the assailants were reportedly confronting one of the victims for objecting to the drug use and "issues in the neighborhood" caused by the Latin Kings gang. Defendant was subsequently recorded telling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial