2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 1 of 21

Pg ID 1646

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

!
!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
!
Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 15-20652
Hon. George Caram Steeh

!
(D-13) ARLANDIS SHY, II,
!

Defendant.
_______________________________________________________________________/

!
!
!
!

MOTION FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE
DETENTION ORDER

Now comes Defendant, (D-13) ARLANDIS SHY, II, , by and through his counsel,

Mark H. Magidson, and in support of his Motion for the Revocation of the Detention Order, states unto this Honorable Court as follows:
1. Defendant, (D-13) ARLANDIS SHY, II, is charged in the Third Superseding Indictment for being in violation of Count One, RICO Conspiracy, contrary to 18
U.S.C. §1962(d) and, Count thirty-two, possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of
a crime of Violence, contrary to 18 U.S.C. §§924(c);2.
2. The Third Superseding Indictment is 58 pages in length and consists of 36 counts.
3. Count I contains 102 numbered paragraphs and covers 26 pages in the Indictment.
4. There are three specific allegations in Count I against Mr. Shy as follows:
(77) On or about April 2, 2009, Arlandis Shy was arrested with marijuana and
Oxycotin pills in Charleston, West Virginia.
!1

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 2 of 21

Pg ID 1647

!

(82) On or about January 16, 2009, SBM enterprise member C and Arlandis Shy
were found in an apartment in Charleston, West Virginia with drug packaging,
marijuana and U.S. Currency.

!

(85) On or about July 29, 2008, Arlandis Shy and other SBM enterprise members
or associates were found in the area of Tacoma and Queen Streets, Detroit, Michigan with heroin, cocaine base (crack cocaine) and U.S. Currency.

!

5. In Count 32, Mr. Shy was lumped together with 17 other defendants where the
Government alleges in a summary and precipitous fashion that these defendants
possessed or aided and abetted one another in using a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence.
6. There are no facts in this count setting forth any specific facts as to what Mr. Shy
did to be guilty of this offense.
7. A Detention Hearing was held on March 7, 2016, and following the hearing, an
order of detention was entered by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford.
8. It is Defendant’s position that the Honorable Elizabeth Stafford erred in finding
that there were no conditions or combination of conditions that would satisfy the
court that Mr. Shy would not be a danger to the community or that he would not
be a flight risk.
9. The Government submitted a written Proffer consisting of 16 pages with only
one page devoted to Mr. Shy, along with exhibits. Except for the one page that
deals with Mr. Shy, the remainder of the Proffer was boilerplate that was submitted in other cases and pertained primarily to the other defendants in this case. (See
Docket # 95-1).

!2

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 3 of 21

Pg ID 1648

10. The Government, in support of detention, stressed that Mr. Shy was involved in
two arrests, not convictions in 2009. In January 2009, the Government in commenting about his record pointed out that Mr. Shy was arrested in West Virginia in
January 2009, seven years ago, for possession of marijuana. (T. 7, detention hearing). That charge was never pursued and was dismissed. This seven -year old arrest should not be considered.
11. The Government further stressed in April of 2009 he was arrested for being in a
car with another female that contained 300 Oxycontin pills in the motor vehicle
and marijuana was found on his person. (T. 8-Detention Hearing). The Government acknowledged that he was picked up by a female in her car; the vehicle was
not his. (T. 8-Detention Hearing ). Again this arrest was never pursued; the case
was dismissed. This incident should not be considered.
12. The Government sought to make unsubstantiated allegations about Mr. Shy being
part of a “robbery crew” in 2009, but there were no arrests made; the Government suggested that “that is still being investigated.” (T.8-detention hearing). This
allegation has no legal of factual basis and should not be considered.
13. The Government then made an issue that at the time that the Government sought
to arrest Mr. Shy, agents executed a search warrant by breaking into the home belonging to his aunt where according to the Government, he should have been, but
in fact, was not. (T.13-Detention Hearing). He had been staying with his grandparents at the time of the raid on his aunt’s home in Clinton Township and as soon

!3

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 4 of 21

Pg ID 1649

as he was informed the Government was looking for him, he self-surrendered. (T.
14, 22-Detention Hearing).
14. In terms of his criminal history, Mr. Shy has had three low severity felony cases,
one that was dismissed under HYTA.
15. In 2007, he was charged with possession of cocaine, and placed on HYTA probation for one year. He successfully completed probation and the case was dismissed. (See Exhibit A, warrant and order of probation for the cocaine possession
case)
16. In 2013 he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and pled guilty to “attempt possession” of a concealed weapon and was sentenced to two years probation. (See Exhibit B, warrant and order of conviction)
17. The Government also noted that he was currently on probation to the Macomb
County Circuit Court where he pled guilty to Count I, attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, a four year felony and Count II, using a fraudulent prescription to posses or obtain a controlled substance. He was charged on March 2,
2015. The drug that he was seeking to obtain was penicillin. (See Felony warrant,
exhibit C).
18. Mr. Shy did violate his probation because he associated with a person that had a
felony conviction (T.18-detention hearing). The Government contends that this
association proves that he was a member of the Seven Mile Bloods, because he
was at a memorial for a young man that was killed. What the Government did not
state was Mr. Shy was raised with his mother at his Grandparents’ home on

!4

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 5 of 21

Pg ID 1650

Rosemary Street on the Eastside of Detroit. As a child, he knew and was friendly
with many of the neighbor kids. They all went to the same school, they played
basketball together and through grade school, attended one another’s birthday parties. In September 2015, one of “kids” from the neighborhood, Block, was killed
and his older sister held a memorial in his honor to celebrate his life. She invited
everyone from the Eastside neighborhood to the memorial that was held in Dearborn. He did run into people he had not seen in years they all did reminisce about
the “old days” and their friend Block. A couple persons he knew from the old
neighborhood asked him for a ride back the Eastside. Unbeknownst to him, one of
the occupants had a gun and when the police, who had staked out the memorial,
decided to initiate a “traffic stop” one the passengers threw a gun out the window.
Andrew Thomas, who had been previously convicted of a felony, admitted the
gun was his. Later, Mr. Shy admitted that he violated probation by associating
with a person with a felony conviction. The Macomb County Probation Officer
recommended that Mr. Shy be continued on probation due to this technical violation.
19. The magistrate in deciding this issue concluded that in 2013 he was convicted of
attempt possession of a weapon and two years later, in 2015, he was convicted of
submitting a false prescription to obtain penicillin. (T. 24-Detention Hearing) The
Magistrate also concluded that he was at a “block party” associating with a felon,
(T.24-Detention Hearing). In fact she was attending a memorial for a young man
named “Block.” The Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Shy was doing nothing

!5

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 6 of 21

Pg ID 1651

from 2013 to the present but being in “perpetual violation of the terms of probation.” (T. 25-Detention Hearing). At the time of the raid to arrest Mr. Shy in Clinton Township, he was staying there, but if he did not work, he would stay with his
grandparents in Detroit. Mr. Shy’s Counsel advised the Court that the probation
officer knew where he was; however, the Magistrate Judge discounted that argument by stating, “I really have to go by what the independent investigation indicates.” (T.25-26 Detention Hearing)
20. Mr. Shy contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in ordering detention in this
matter.
21. At the time of his arrest in the Macomb case, Mr. Shy was residing with his
grandparents at 12351 Rosemary, Detroit, Michigan. (See Exhibit C). This is the
home he had lived in all of his life. After being placed upon probation, both in
Wayne County and in Macomb County, he was directed to find employment. The
opportunities for employment on Detroit’s Eastside were sparse, particularly for a
young African American male with a felony record. However He did locate work
through a temporary placement agency. He went to where the jobs were, small
factories making auto parts.
22. Nikki DeLamielure is a Senior Staffing Consultant at Express Employment Professionals. She confirms that Mr. Shy was employed through her agency from
September 2014 through December 2015, working at various assignments as a
“temp” employee doing assembly and quality work. (See Exhibit D, letter from
Nikki DeLamiellure). She noted that “Arlandis was very dependable and hard-

!6

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 7 of 21

Pg ID 1652

working associate .” She further volunteered that she received “nothing but positive feedback from his team leaders and Arlandis was one of the very few people
that I could rely on for last minute needs.” The fact that he was a standout in her
mind speaks volumes for him when she employs well over 100 people per month.
23. Because his aunt and mother lived in Macomb County nearer the employment opportunities, he moved into his aunt’s apartment in Clinton Township. His mother
lived there, too. Mr. Shy notified the Macomb County Probation Department and
advised that he would be staying with his mother at his aunt’s apartment when he
worked. Since there was limited space he brought very little possessions and slept
on the couch. When he did not work, he stayed with his grandparent’s home on
Rosemary to assist them around the home and to assist his grandfather in his auto
repair work.
24. In a report dated October 13, 2015, the probation officer made an unannounced
visit to 15505 Lake Village Dr, Apartment 305, Clinton Township. According to
the Probation Officer’s report, Bonnie Phillips, “P” (Probationer) answer the door,
and stated he sleeps on the couch. The Officer observed that there were pillows
and blankets in the living room. (See Exhibit E, attached hereto)
25. Chiequita L. Roach is Mr. Shy’s maternal aunt. It was her apartment that was
raided by the Government agents looking for Mr. Shy. She confirms his good
character and confirms they are a very close-knit family. She marvels how he has
committed himself to raising “another man’s baby” for the past five years. (See
Exhibit F, letter for Ms. Chiequita Roach.)

!7

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 8 of 21

Pg ID 1653

26. Mr. Shy’s mother, Felicia Roach confirms Mr. Shy’s strong relationship with a
child, Isabella, who only knows him as “daddy.” She confirms his being on the
Usher Board of the Freedom Missionary Baptist Church and being helpful to his
grandparents and giving them security in a deteriorating neighborhood. She confirmed that her son was respectful to not only her, but his grandparents and became the surrogate father to his then girlfriend’s little girl. (See letter from Felicia
Roach, Shy’s mother. Exhibit G)
27. About four or five years ago, Mr. Shy began dating Kenisha Thomas, a single
mother with an eight-month old child, Isabella. She describes how Mr. Shy quickly became a big part of Isabella’s life; she loves him as if he were her “daddy.”
She notes than when she needed a “break” Arlandis would care for her full time;
he would take care of her when she worked. She reminded us that “it takes a village to raise one child” and by that she meant Arlandis and his family. For Isabella, she does not know Arlandis is not her “blood,” but she does know who loves
her and that she misses him very much. Ms. Thomas and Mr. Shy have not been
together for two years, but that did not interfere wit his relationship with Isabella.
She also confirms that she knows that Mr. Shy is not violent or a threat. (See Exhibit H, letter from Kenisha Thomas.)
28. Virgil Taylor has known Mr. Shy since he was two years old. Perhaps Arlandis
modeled his behavior from Mr. Taylor, since years ago “because I loved his mother, I felt the right thing was to try to love her son.” Mr. Taylor describes Mr. Shy
as being a good listener, not a mouthy kid and respectful to all his elders. After

!8

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 9 of 21

Pg ID 1654

he and his mother separated, he maintained a close relationship with Arlandis,
watching U of M football and other sports. He further confirmed that he was very
close to his grandparents, mother, and aunt, spending most of his time with family. He knows Arlandis to be of good character and not a threat to society. (See Exhibit I, attached hereto, Letter from Virgil Taylor.)
29. Aretha Adams is a friend of the family and has known Mr. Shy all his life. She
knows him to be a kind, not threatening young man. Ms. Adams’ mother has dementia and Arlandis was always very kind to her and helps the mother around her
house, bringing moments of joy to a woman with few bright spots. She confirmed
that Arlandis always seemed to have a job when jobs were scarce. Her own children love Arlandis and she verifies that Isabella misses him very much. (See Exhibit J, attached hereto, letter from Aretha Adams).
30. Carolyn Stevens is Mr. Shy’s grandmother who lives at 12351 Rosemary in Detroit who confirms that her grandson Arlandis lived with them all his life, except
for the time he was living closer to his employment, which was in Macomb County. When he did not work, he came back to her house, to help out. He has his own
room in her home, but when he was on Probation and working in Macomb Count
he lived with her daughter. She describes that he does chores around the house
such as taking her to the grocery store, taking out the garbage, taking laundry up
and down the basement stairs and many other similar chores. She never had any
problems with her grandson. She too confirms that they all love and care for Is-

!9

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 10 of 21

Pg ID 1655

abella and if allowed, would be welcome in her home. (See Exhibit K, attached
hereto, Affidavit of Carolyn Stephens)
31. Samuel Stephens is Mr. Shy’s grandfather. He retired from the United States Air
Force as a mechanic and still does mechanic work for friends and neighbors at his
home garage. Mr. Stephens who is 78 needs help for some of the jobs because
they are “two man” jobs. His grandson would help him if he (Arlandis) were not
working at his temp jobs. Arlandis accompanies him to church once a month and
is very respectful of elders and church members. (see Exhibit L, Affidavit of
Samuel Stephens.)
32. These are the people who know him best, the side of Mr. Shy that the Magistrate
Judge was not shown. He is not a threat or danger to the community. He was not
convicted of any prior violent felonies. He has no history of failing to appear.
While he was convicted of a drug case and on probation, the “drug conviction”
consisted of trying to use a false prescription to get cold medicine. His character
comes through from all the people that know him, including the probation officer
in Macomb County who has been supervising him for the past two years. There
was nothing obvious to the Macomb County Probation that Mr. Shy was affiliated
with any gang. (See Exhibit M, Gang provision of Macomb Presentence Report.)
In short, he has rebutted the presumption that there are no conditions that can be
imposed that would allow release pending trial.

!10

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 11 of 21

Pg ID 1656

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant shy is respectfully requesting that the Order of Detention be set side and an order for personal release with conditions if necessary be imposed allowing Mr. Shy to be free of detention pending trial.

!
!
!
!
!
!
Date: October 28, 2016
!

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Mark H. Magidson
MARK H. MAGIDSON (P25581)
Attorney for Defendant Shy
615 Griswold, Ste. 810
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 963-4311

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!11

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 12 of 21

Pg ID 1657

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
!
Plaintiff,

-vs-

Case No. 15-20652
Hon. George Caram Steeh

ARLANDIS SHY, II,

!

Defendant.
_______________________________________________________________________/

!

DEFENDANT SHY’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER

!
I. FACTUAL STATEMENT
!

A Detention Hearing was held on March 7, 2016, and following the hearing, an

order of detention was entered by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford. It is Defendant’s
position that the Honorable Elizabeth Stafford erred in finding that there were no conditions or combination of conditions that would satisfy the court that Mr. Shy would not be
a danger to the community or that he would not be a flight risk.
At the Detention Hearing the Government stressed that Mr. Shy was involved in two
arrests, not convictions in 2009. In January 2009, the Government in commenting about
his “long” record pointed out that Mr. Shy was arrested in West Virginia in January 2009,
seven years ago, for possession of marijuana. (T. 7, detention hearing). That charge was
never pursued and was dismissed. This seven -year old arrest should not be considered.
The Government further stressed in April of 2009 he was arrested for being in a car
with another female that contained 300 Oxycontin pill in the motor vehicle and marijuana

!12

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 13 of 21

Pg ID 1658

was found on his person. (T. 8-Detention Hearing). The Government acknowledged that
he was picked up by a female in her car; the vehicle was not his. (T.8-Detention Hearing).
Again this arrest was never pursued; the case was dismissed. This incident should not be
considered.
The Government sought to make unsubstantiated allegations about Mr. Shy being part
of a “robbery crew” in 2009, but there were no arrests made; nevertheless the Government suggested that “that is still being investigated.” (T.8-detention hearing). This allegation has no legal of factual basis and should not be considered. The Government then
made an issue that at the time that the Government sought to arrest Mr. Shy, agents executed a search warrant by breaking into the home belonging to his aunt where according
to the Government, he should have been, but in fact, was not. (T.13-Detention Hearing).
He had been staying with his grandparents at the time of the raid on his aunt’s home in
Clinton Township, and as soon as he was informed the Government was looking for him,
he self-surrendered. (T. 14, 22-Detention Hearing).
In terms of his criminal history, Mr. Shy had three low severity, non-violent felony
cases, one that was dismissed under HYTA.
The Government also noted that he was on probation to the Macomb County Circuit
Court at the time of his arrest in this case. There he pled guilty to Count I, attempt to obtain a controlled substance by fraud, a four year felony and Count II, using a fraudulent
prescription to posses or obtain a controlled substance. He was charged on March 2,
2015. The drug that he was seeking to obtain was penicillin.

!13

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 14 of 21

Pg ID 1659

Mr. Shy did violate his probation because he associated with a person that had a
felony conviction (T.18-deterntion hearing). The Government contends that this association proves that he was a member of the Seven Mile Bloods, because he was at a memorial for a young man that was killed. What the Government did not state was Mr. Shy was
raised with his mother at his Grandparents’ home on Rosemary Street on the Eastside of
Detroit. As a child, he knew and was friendly with many of the neighbor kids. They all
went to the same school, they played basketball together and through grade school, attended one another’s birthday party. In September 2015, one of “kids” from the neighborhood, a young man named Block, was killed and his older sister held a memorial in
his Honor to celebrate his life.
She invited everyone from the Eastside neighborhood to the memorial that was held
in Dearborn. He did run into people he had not seen in years they all did reminisce about
the “old days” and their friend Block. A couple persons he knew from the old neighborhood asked him for a ride back the Eastside. Unbeknownst to him, one of the occupants
had a gun and when the police, who had staked out the memorial, decided to initiate a
“traffic stop” one the passengers threw a gun out the window. Andrew Thomas, who had
been previously convicted of a felony, admitted the gun was his. Later, Mr. Shy admitted
that he violated probation by associating with a person with a felony conviction. The Macomb County Probation Officer recommended that Mr. Shy be continued on probation
due to this technical violation.
The magistrate in deciding this issue found that in 2013 he was convicted of attempt
possession of a weapon and two years later, in 2015, he was convicted of submitting a

!14

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 15 of 21

Pg ID 1660

false prescription to obtain penicillin. (T. 24-Detention Hearing) The Magistrate also concluded that he was at a “block party” associating with a felon, (T.24-Deterntion Hearing).
In fact she was attending a memorial for a young man named “Block.” The Magistrate
Judge concluded that Mr. Shy was doing nothing from 2013 to the present but being in
“perpetual violation of the terms of probation.” (T. 25-Deterntion Hearing). She ignored
the fact that he was working, taking of his child and assisting his elderly grandparents.
The other concern of the Magistrate Judge was that Mr. Shy was not at the address
that he advised the Macomb Probation that he would be. In fact that was not true; a home
visit by the Probation Officer verified that he was sleeping on the couch. The reason he
was not where he was “supposed to be” under the terms of his probation was that he
stayed with his aunt and mother in Clinton Township when he worked because he was
closer to work. On the days he did not work (he was a “Temp”), he stayed with his
grandparents to assist them. He admits that he had few possessions at his aunt’s home because there was limited space. Mr. Shy’s Counsel advised the Court that the probation
officer knew where he was, however, the Magistrate Judge discounted that argument by
stating, “I really have to go by what the independent investigation indicates.” (T.25-26Deterntion Hearing)
As noted in the motion and the letters attached to the motion, the people who know
him best established the side of Mr. Shy that the Magistrate Judge was not shown. He is
not a threat or danger to the community. He was not convicted of any prior violent
felonies. He has no history of failing to appear. While he was convicted of a drug case
while on probation, the “drug conviction” being that he tried use a false prescription to

!15

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 16 of 21

Pg ID 1661

get cold medicine. His character comes through from all the people that know him, including the probation officer in Macomb County who has been supervising him for the
past two years. There was nothing obvious to the Macomb County Probation that Mr. Shy
was affiliated with any gang. In short, he has rebutted the presumption that there are no
conditions that can be imposed that would allow release pending trial.
II. ARGUMENT
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THERE WERE
NO CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD PROTECT SOCIETY
AND ASSURE THE DEFENDANT’S APPEARANCE, WHERE THE MOST SERIOUS
ALLEGATIONS AND COUNTS IN THIS INDICTMENT DO NOT APPLY TO
ARLANDIS SHY AND WHERE SHY’S CRIMINAL HISTORY CONTAINS NO
VIOLENCE OR FAILURE’S TO APPEAR, AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS
REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF DETENTION

!

As outlined in the Defendant’s Motion, in the days and months leading up to his arrest, Mr. Shy was working for Temp Service, living with his aunt and mother in Clinton
Township, because that is where the work was. He stayed with his grandparents when
there was no work because he would assist his grandmother around the house and assist
his grandfather in his garage. He does have three felony convictions, a fact that he is not
proud of, but one of the felonies was dismissed under HYTA. None of the felonies were
violent and there is no history of Mr. Shy failing to appear.
According to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), a defendant shall be detained
pending trial if, after a hearing, the judicial officer finds that no condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of
any other person and the community. Section 3142(g) sets out the factors to be considered in making that determination. Those factors are: (1) the nature and circumstances of
!16

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 17 of 21

Pg ID 1662

the offense charged; (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 defendant's release. 

“The law requires reasonable assurance but does not demand absolute certainty.” United States v. Alston, 420 F.2d 176, 178 (D.C.Cir.1969); see also United States v. Orta, 760
F. 2d 887, 891–92 (8th Cir.1985):



the district court erred in interpreting the “reasonably assure” standard set forth in the
statute as a requirement that release conditions “guarantee” community safety and the
defendant's appearance. Such an interpretation contradicts both the framework and the
intent of the pretrial release and detention provision of the 1984 Act. Congress envisioned
the pretrial detention of only a fraction of accused individuals awaiting trial. The district
court's interpretation, however, virtually mandates the detention of almost every pretrial
defendant: no other safeguard can “guarantee” the avoidance of the statutory concerns.

The structure of the [bail] statute mandates every form of release be considered before
detention may be imposed. That structure cannot be altered by building a “guarantee” requirement atop the legal criterion erected to evaluate release conditions in individual cases. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 892 (8th Cir.1985).

The Court reviews a defendant's appeal of an order of detention de novo. U.S. v. Leon,
766 F.2d 77 (2d Cir.1985); see also U.S. v. Koubriti, 2001 WL 1525270 (E.D.Mich.2001)
(Although the Sixth Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue of the proper standard of

!17

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 18 of 21

Pg ID 1663

review of a Magistrate Judge's detention order, the majority of the circuits that have considered the issue have ruled that a de novo review is appropriate); U.S. v. Runnderstand,
2008 WL 927774 (E.D.Mich.2008). In reviewing the appeal, the Court “may ‘start from
scratch’ and hold a new hearing or review the transcripts of the proceedings before the
magistrate.” United States v. Hammond, 204 F.Supp.2d 1157, 1162 (E.D.Wis.2002) (citing United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 291, 292 (7th Cir.1991)); see also United States v.
Vasquez, 241 F.Supp.2d 34, 35 (D.Me.2003) (court considered both the transcript of the
hearing before the Magistrate Judge and additional evidence produced at a hearing).

The Defendants' guilt or innocence need not be decided at a detention hearing.
Indeed, “the statute neither requires nor permits a pretrial determination of guilt.” See
United States v. Johnson, 2007 WL 1712541 at *1 (E.D.Mich. June 13, 2007) (citing
United States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.1991)). Nonetheless, the weight of
the evidence the Government has against Defendants is an important consideration. In
fact, the seriousness of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence, and whether the
Defendants are a danger to the community, are inextricably intertwined.

While 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3) creates a rebuttal presumption in favor of detention in this
case, the presumption requires merely that Mr. Shy “come forward with evidence that he
does not pose a danger to the community or risk of flight” and that burden of production
in rebuttal requires Mr. Shy to present some evidence in his favor while the burden of
persuasion continues to rest with the Government. United States v. Mercedes, 254 F. 3d
433, 436 (2nd Cir., 2001); United States v. Strickland, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355 (10th Cir.

!18

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 19 of 21

Pg ID 1664

1991).

The Sixth Circuit has held that in both presumption and non-presumption cases, the
Government maintains the burden of proving that no condition of release can assure the
defendant will appear nor that they can assure the safety of the community. United States
v Stone, 608 F.3d 939,946 (2010). Further the Court in Stone emphasized that in cases
“involving multiple defendants who are not similarly situated, the dangerousness inquiry
must be an individualized one. Just as at trial, in which courts and juries must resist the
urge to find guilt or innocence by association, each defendant is entitled to have an individualized determination of bail eligibility, Id.

The required individualized assessment must be viewed in the context of a Defendant’s
strong Fifth Amendment liberty interest such that there a limited circumstances in which
the Government’s interest in detention for purposes of community safety or to guarantee
appearance are limited. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739,749-50, 107 S.Ct. 2095,
95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). There the Court held that that it was not a deprivation of Due
Process to deny bail to the leader and captain of a Mafia crime family who were accused
of 35 racketeering acts and many continuous violent acts.

Here, as noted in the Motion, the allegations in the Indictment are sparse and vague. In
Count I, the “bad acts” consist of some out of state arrests, not convictions. The Indictment outlines serious allegations against other members of this conspiracy, but there is
nothing as to Mr. Shy. Regarding the 922(g) Count, there are no specific allegations as to

!19

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 20 of 21

Pg ID 1665

Mr. Shy, only vague conclusions. The history of Mr. Shy is that he is family oriented. He
has a history of working and he is the father to the child of his former girlfriend. That
type of moral commitment speaks volumes for a young man who has no legal obligations
to this child. The Macomb County Probation Officer who has been supervising him for
over a year recommended continued probation after he had a technical violation of probation of associating with a person with a felony record. The evidence against Mr. Shy is
this case amounts to guilt by association, not his own individualized wrong-doing.

Mr. Shy does not have any history of violent behavior. If released on bond he
would be welcomed to return living in Clinton Township with his aunt if he can get work
or with his grandparents in Detroit. They need his assistance and would be willing to do
whatever is necessary to assure his appearance. The fact that he self-surrendered, surrounded by family members is a clear indication that he is not a flight risk and that he has
strong family support. Finally, it cannot be overlooked that a little girl , who has a hole
in her heart, and who knows only one daddy will be overjoyed and thrilled to have her
dad back in her life taking care of her.

!
!
!
!
!20

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 381 Filed 10/28/16 Pg 21 of 21

Pg ID 1666

WHEREFORE, Mr. Shy respectfully request that this Court review this matter, and
permit Defendant to call witnesses, particularly the Macomb County Probation Officer,
and after careful consideration, release Mr. Shy on an unsecured bond with any conditions this court deems reasonable and necessary.

Respectfully submitted,

!

Date: October 28, 2016

!
!
!

By: s/Mark H. Magidson
MARK H. MAGIDSON (P25581)
Attorney for Defendant Shy
615 Griswold, Ste. 810
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 963-4311

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on October 28, 2016 I electronically filed the above motion and at-

tached exhibits with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the parties of record.
By: s/Mark H. Magidson
MARK H. MAGIDSON (P25581)
Attorney for Defendant Shy

!21