2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 2879 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO. 15-20652 Plaintiff, HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH v. D-5 QUINCY GRAHAM, Defendant. ________________________________/ GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER [578] The United States of America, by its undersigned attorney, hereby responds to the defendant’s motion for revocation of order of detention and request for hearing: because there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community, the defendant’s motion should be denied and the defendant should remain detained. Respectfully submitted, Dated: August 14, 2017 DANIEL L. LEMISCH ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Christopher Graveline CHRISTOPHER GRAVELINE Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Christopher.Graveline2@usdoj.gov (313) 226-9155 P69515 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2880 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO. 15-20652 Plaintiff, HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH v. D-5 QUINCY GRAHAM, Defendant. ________________________________/ GOVERNMENT’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER AND REQUEST FOR HEARING [581] The defendant has been in custody since August 2015 on his separate federal case for felon in possession of a firearm, Case No. 15-CR-20546. In that case, the defendant moved twice unsuccessfully for pretrial release, first in front of Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub and later in front of the Honorable Denise Page Hood. See Exhibit 1 - 15-CR-20546, Docket Entry (DE) 9, Order of Detention Pending Trial, and Exhibit 2 - 15-CR-20546, DE 20, Order Denying Motion for Revocation of Detention Order. While that case was pending, a grand jury indicted the defendant on the instant matter and he consented to detention. See 15-CR-20652, DE 137, Detention Order. The defendant pled guilty in Case No. 15-CR-20546 on December 15, 2015, the Court 2 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 2881 sentenced him to 27 months imprisonment on October 4, 2016, and he is scheduled to be released from that sentence of imprisonment in August 2017. See 15-CR-20546, DE 34, Judgement, and 15-CR-20652 DE 581, Motion for Revocation of Detention Order. The defendant now moves this Court to release him pending trial in the instant case. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW A defendant should be detained when “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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3142(g), the factors to be considered when determining if detention is warranted include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a crime of violence…or involves a…firearm; (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 person’s release. A defendant faces a rebuttable presumption that detention is appropriate when he is charged with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3). A defendant subject to this presumption bears the “burden of production,” which requires him to “come forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight.” 3 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 2882 United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Even if this defendant satisfies his burden, the statutory presumption “remains a factor to be considered among those weighed by the district court.” Id. This is because the presumption “reflects Congress’s substantive judgment that particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained pending trial,” and it is the defendant’s responsibility to “present all the special features of his case that take it outside the congressional paradigm.” Id. at 946. Should the presumption of detention be rebutted, the government must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a risk of flight, and by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to the community. United States v. Hazime, 762 F.2d 34, 37 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Hinton, 113 Fed.Appx. 76, 77 (6th Cir. 2004); United States v. Ellison, 2007 WL 106572 (E.D. Mich. 2007); see 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS OR COMBINATION OF CONDITIONS THAT WILL REASONABLY ASSURE THE APPEARANCE OF THE DEFENDANT AND THE SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY While there was no detention hearing in this case given the defendant’s initial consent, the government would point the Court to detention litigation history in the defendant’s contemporaneous case for felon in possession of a firearm since many of the same detention factors were considered and have essentially remained unchanged. To begin, Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub held a detention hearing for the defendant on August 27, 2015. Both pretrial services and the government 4 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 2883 recommended detention pending trial stating that the defendant was a danger to the community and a risk of flight. In support of its recommendation, the government proffered the affidavit in support of the complaint, the Pretrial Services Report, and an oral proffer that detailed the defendant’s connection to Seven Mile Blood (SMB) street gang, an on-going shooting back-and-forth between rival gangs on Detroit’s east side including the defendant being shot on December 18, 2014, the defendant’s prior 2013 arrest for carrying a concealed weapon (with the same passenger, Diondre Fitzpatrick who is a co-defendant in the instant case and who was also with him on the night of July 5, 2015), and his prior contacts with police in Charleston, West Virginia, which included the seizure of a loaded firearm and narcotics on one occasion and the seizure of over $16,000 on another. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Majzoub ruled that the defendant should remain in detention since there were no conditions or combination of conditions that would will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community. Judge Majzoub issued a written order of detention pending trial detailing her rationale that same day. See Exhibit 1. Of particular concern to Judge Majzoub was the conflicting information that the defendant provided to pretrial concerning his living arrangements and his employment history that were contradicted when pretrial services checked into these matters. The defendant requested that Judge Hood revoke that order on several occasions 5 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 2884 citing many of the same possible conditions to ensure compliance and identifying the same individuals who could employ him. See Exhibit 3 - 15-CR-20546, DE 16, Motion for Revocation of Detention Order, at 5; Exhibit 4 - 15-CR-20546, DE 28, [Stricken] Pro Se Motion for Release on Personal Recognizance or Bail, at 3. However, Judge Hood denied the defendant’s repeated attempts to lift the detention order. After reviewing the entirety of the defendant’s detention litigation over the past two years, the only new consideration that has not been raised before is his completion of the “FDC Change Program” while currently incarcerated. See DE 578, Exhibit 1. The government does not believe that completion of that course is enough to rebut the presumption of detention. A close analysis of each of the statutory factors delineated in 18 U.S.C § 3142(g) makes clear that detention is appropriate and necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance at trial and the safety of the community. Nature and Circumstances The nature and circumstances of the offenses charged strongly favor detention. The defendant has been charged with racketeering conspiracy and firearms-related charges due to his active and long-standing membership in SMB. These charges carry with them the possibility of lengthy incarceration. The RICO conspiracy charge, as applicable to the defendant, carries a statutory maximum of life imprisonment. Additionally, the defendant is charged with another life offense, with a five-year statutory mandatory minimum, for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of 6 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 2885 violence. Moreover, contrary to the defendant’s contention that he is not associated with any of the violence in this case, the government will present evidence at trial demonstrating that the defendant was an active SMB member during the gang war alleged in the Fourth Superseding Indictment and was himself injured in a gang-related shooting in December 2014. The strength of the evidence, as detailed below, coupled with the severe penalties that the defendant will face if convicted, serves as ample motivation to flee the district rather than face trial. Thus, the nature and seriousness of the charge clearly favors detention. Weight of the Evidence Second, the weight of the evidence against the person is to be considered. As detailed in the indictment, the weight of the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming. In addition to having been found with a firearm between his legs in Harper Woods, the defendant was arrested on August 11, 2013, again with Fitzpatrick and other SMB members/associates, in a car where a loaded firearm was recovered. Moreover, on multiple occasions the defendant was either arrested himself, or present when other members of SMB were arrested, for the possession of firearms, narcotics, large amounts of money, or drug packaging was recovered. See DE 46, Second Superseding Indictment, PgIDs 157, 161-162, 164, 167. Such facts support his role in the racketeering conspiracy. Thus, the strength of the evidence against the defendant weighs against release. 7 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 2886 History and Characteristics Third, the history and characteristics of the defendant are to be considered. Simply stated, the defendant has repeatedly demonstrated that he is both a danger to his community and a flight risk. The defendant is an active member of the violent SMB gang. SMB and its rivals have engaged in violent attacks against each other and have posted respective “hit lists” on social media. See DE 46 at PgID 146, 150-151. Nor is the defendant at arms-length from the violence. As delineated in Judge Majzoub’s detention order, this is not the defendant’s first contact with the criminal justice system. See Exhibit 1 at 2. Indeed, on at three different occasions, law enforcement officers in Michigan and West Virginia found the defendant in close proximity to loaded firearms and/or narcotics, narcotics proceeds, or his fellow SMB gang members. Further, following one such shooting of rivals by members of SMB, co-defendant Arnold asked the defendant to post taunting rap lyrics to the rival gang’s social media page demonstrating his role in the ongoing war. See DE 46 at PgID 157. Additionally, SMB “makes its money predominately through the sale and distribution of controlled substances, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, codeine promethazine, and various prescription pills.” Id. at PgID 150. SMB’s drug trafficking involves gang members traveling “to West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and other states to sell controlled substances.” Id. In the past five years, the defendant has been arrested at least six times and charged with crimes including possession of a 8 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 2887 concealed weapon, two charges of driving under the influence, and possession of controlled substances. At least one of the defendant’s narcotics-related arrests took place in West Virginia when approximately 330 Oxycontin pills were recovered. On a different occasion, he was present in a house in West Virginia where approximately $16,000 was recovered. This pattern of criminal activity suggests he is involved with distributing narcotics for SMB in West Virginia and demonstrates his release would pose a danger to the community. The defendant is also a flight risk. Of particular concern are the defendant’s ties to West Virginia. There is nothing to demonstrate he will not simply choose to reside there and fail to appear for his court dates in Detroit. While the defendant asserts that he will reside within the Eastern District of Michigan, his frequent presence within West Virginia demonstrates that the defendant has connections to a location well outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, the defendant’s assertion, without more, should be assessed with skepticism, as the defendant has previously provided false information about his living arrangements to Pretrial Services, as noted by Judge Majzoub’s detention order. See Exhibit 1 at 2. Additionally, contrary to what the defendant asserts in his motion, the defendant has not “always demonstrated respect for the judicial system.” See DE 578 at 9. There have been several occasions where the defendant has failed to appear for court dates or abide by the conditions of his release, including: 9 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 2888 - violation of probation for his 2006 felony dangerous drug conviction; - failure to appear in Charleston, West Virginia on his fleeing police officer charge in 2013; - failure to appear for driving under the influence charge in 2014; - failure to appear for driving under the influence and driving without a license in 2014; and - two outstanding warrants for failure to appear. Simply stated, there is nothing in the defendant’s history that suggests that he will appear, or will follow the directions of the Court. Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to Any Person or Community The defendant is a member of a violent street gang, and not just any member, rather he is a person who has shown that he is willing to arm himself regardless of whether the law forbids it or not. His pattern of criminal activity extends to both Michigan and West Virginia. As his trial approaches, with the possibility of much more severe consequences than those he faced in his felon in possession of a firearm case, the defendant will have strong incentives to flee or commit violence on potential witnesses as they become identified to avoid these consequences. Consequently, all of the relevant factors identified by Congress weigh heavily in favor of continued detention for the defendant. 10 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 2889 CONCLUSION Because no condition or combination of conditions can reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance before this Court and the safety of the community, the defendant’s motion should be denied and the defendant should remain detained. Respectfully submitted, DANIEL L. LEMISCH ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Christopher Graveline CHRISTOPHER GRAVELINE Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Christopher.Graveline2@usdoj.gov (313) 226-9155 P69515 Dated: August 14, 2017 11 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 613 Filed 08/11/17 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 2890 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on Friday, August 11, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Michael A. Rataj I further certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: N/A /s/ Christopher Graveline CHRISTOPHER GRAVELINE Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 Christopher.Graveline2@usdoj.gov (313) 226-9155 P69515 Dated: August 14, 2017 12