United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
OPINION AND ORDER
K. CALDWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CHIEF JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the defendant Lisa Charise
Mahone's motion (DE 30) to revoke the magistrate
judge's detention order. For the following reasons, the
Court will deny the motion.
is charged with six criminal charges relating to the
distribution of heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, including one
charge of conspiring with her son to distribute heroin and
fentanyl. The government moved that she be detained pending
trial. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1), a defendant
must be detained pending trial if, after a hearing, a
judicial officer finds that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure her appearance and public
safety. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), for any
defendant charged with the crimes at issue here, there is a
rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure the public safety or that
the defendant will meet her appearance obligations. There is
no dispute that the presumption applies in this case.
detention hearing, the magistrate judge determined that
Mahone rebutted the presumption as to her willingness to meet
her appearance obligations. As to public safety, however, the
magistrate judge determined that she had not rebutted the
presumption that there were not sufficient conditions that
would reasonably assure the safety of the community if Mahone
were released. The magistrate judge further determined that,
even if Mahone had rebutted the presumption of detention, a
consideration of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)
required her detention pending trial.
Court will conduct a de novo review of the
magistrate judge's detention order. The statute does not
specifically require this Court to conduct an additional
hearing. In her motion, Mahone does not request a hearing and
she does not rely on or explain any additional evidence that
she would proffer in support of the motion. Accordingly, a
second detention hearing is not necessary. See United
States v. Gaviria, 828 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir.1987);
United States v. Jones, No. 12:CR-105, 2012 WL
6737784, at * 1, n.1 (D. Conn. 2012); United States v.
Burks, 141 F.Supp.2d 1283, 1285 (D. Kan.
2001);United States v. Alonso, 832 F.Supp. 503, 504
(D. Puerto Rico 1993); United States v. Bergner, 800
F.Supp. 659, 661 (N.D.Ind.1992).
resolving this motion, the Court will rely on the indictment,
the audio recording of the detention hearing, the pretrial
report prepared by the United States Probation Office, and
the pleadings submitted by the parties.
the presumption of detention is invoked, the burden of
production shifts to the defendant. However, the burden of
persuasion regarding risk of flight and danger to the
community remains with the government. United States v.
Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). The
defendant's burden of production is “not heavy,
” but she must produce some evidence that she does not
pose a danger to the community or risk of flight.
Id. Even if a defendant's burden of production
is met, the presumption remains a factor for consideration by
the district court in determining whether to release or
detain. Id The Court will assume, as the magistrate
judge found, that Mahone rebutted the presumption that she
posed a flight risk. The Court agrees with the magistrate
judge, however, that Mahone did not rebut the presumption
that no conditions could reasonably assure community safety
if she is released. On this issue, Mahone largely relies on
the fact that officials have permitted her to remain free
pending trial on state charges. This Court, however, is
required to make its own assessment as to the defendant's
danger to the community. Accordingly, the Court does not find
the assessment of state officials as to Mahone's danger
to the community is sufficient evidence to rebut the
presumption that she poses a danger to the community.
even if this were sufficient evidence to rebut the detention
presumption, the Court finds detention nonetheless required
under §3142(g). In making this determination, the court
is to consider “the available information” on the
following factors: the nature and circumstances of the
offense, including whether the offense involves a controlled
substance; the weight of the evidence against the person; the
history and characteristics of the person; and the nature and
seriousness of the danger to any person or the community
posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g).
is charged with very serious offenses, all of which involve
controlled substances. One of those substances is fentanyl, a
particularly lethal drug that has led to multiple deaths in
this district alone. If found guilty of these offenses,
Mahone faces up to 30 years in prison. Mahone admitted to the
United States Probation officer that she last used cocaine
only one week before the officer interviewed her. This was
while she was released on bond on state drug charges.
Further, when she was arrested for these federal charges,
Mahone had 25 grams of cocaine and $4, 000 in cash on her.
Mahone has been unemployed since October 2016 and reported to
the U.S. probation officer that she has only $250 in assets.
She clearly was not complying with the conditions of her
at the gas station where Mahone was arrested on the federal
charges, officers found a handgun that appeared to have been
recently placed in a public restroom after a juvenile
traveling with Mahone asked the officers for permission to
enter the restroom. Mahone has a prior federal felony
drug-trafficking conviction. While on bond on that charge,
she apparently used cocaine on multiple occasions and
ultimately agreed to the revocation of her bond. Finally,
Mahone has a long history of substance abuse.
Court finds that the government has proved by clear and
convincing evidence that no condition or combination of
conditions could reasonably assure the community's safety
if she is not detained. Considering the serious nature of the
charges against Mahone, the significant danger posed by
controlled substances and the particular danger posed by
fentanyl, Mahone's history of drug abuse and trafficking,
and Mahone's willingness to violate court-imposed
conditions on her release in prior instances, the Court finds
that Mahone must be detained. This conclusion is consistent
with that of the magistrate judge and the United States
the Court hereby ORDERS that Mahone's motion to revoke or
amendment the magistrate judge's ...