2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 1 of 12

Pg ID 614

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 15-20652
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

v.
D-6

ROBERT BROWN II,

Defendant.
________________________________/

GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files
this opposition to Defendant Robert Brown’s Motion for Revocation of Detention
Hearing (Dkt. No. 165). The defendant’s motion should be denied because he is not
entitled to reopen a detention hearing without new information, which he lacks.
Even if his motion were considered, there is a statutory presumption of detention
given that the defendant has been indicted on racketeering conspiracy and firearms
charges related to his involvement and membership in a violent street gang. In
addition, the defendant has committed recent acts of violence and has even
threatened to kill his own father. The defendant is a danger to the community and a
risk of non-appearance and his detention should be continued pending trial.

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 2 of 12

Pg ID 615

BACKGROUND
On February 17, 2016, the defendant and 14 other individuals were charged in
a second superseding indictment with one count of racketeering conspiracy, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and one count of possession of a firearm in
furtherance of a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 924(c) and 2. Some of the other individuals were also charged with murder in aid
of racketeering, attempted murder in aid of racketeering, assault with a dangerous
weapon in aid of racketeering, and firearm offenses.
The second superseding indictment alleges that the defendant is a member of
a violent gang called the Seven Mile Bloods, or “SMB.” According to the second
superseding indictment, the “SMB is currently in an active gang war with an alliance
of other gangs operating on Detroit’s east side . . . .” (R. 46: Second Superseding
Indictment, PgID 150). The SMB and its rivals “are violently attacking one another
and have posted respective ‘hit lists’ on social media.” Id. Defendant Robert Brown
is identified in eleven overt acts contained with the second superseding indictment.
According to the second superseding indictment, the SMB members identify
themselves with the number “55” and sometimes refer to themselves as “55 Crew”
or “55 Grinch.” Id. PgID 149. The SMB is also “heavily involved in the rap music
scene. SMB members regularly post videos of their rap music and discuss their gang
2

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 3 of 12

Pg ID 616

affiliation and accomplishments via rap.” Id. It is also alleged in the second
superseding indictment that the SMB “makes its money predominately through the
sale and distribution of controlled substances, including cocaine, heroin, marijuana,
codeine promethazine, and various prescription pills.” Id. PgID 150. The SMB’s
drug trafficking also involves gang members traveling “to West Virginia, Ohio,
Kentucky, and other states to sell controlled substances.” Id.
On March 1, 2016, law enforcement officers arrested the defendant at his
residence and conducted a search pursuant to a warrant. Law enforcement officers
found marijuana, numerous prescription pills, a drug scale, and gang related
paraphernalia, including clothing and a notebook containing rap lyrics. These lyrics
included the following:
I ain’t trying to go to jail tell the cops to go to hell
Catch an opp 30 shells pills coming threw [sic] the mail
Getting money it don’t stop
RIP my nigga Block1
Riding round with the chop
Heard they be on this Block
Killed the nigga and I beat the case
Then I spit rite in the judge face
Pill trips I B a on
The way GL state 2 state back home cause I beat the case
Cut the grass damn I see
The snakes 55 thats everyday

1

“Block” is the alias of Devon McClure, a deceased member of the Seven Mile Bloods killed in
the gang war on May 1, 2015.

3

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 4 of 12

Pg ID 617

On March 9, 2016, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Stafford
for a detention hearing. At the hearing the government proffered the following facts
to support its motion for detention:


There is a statutory presumption of detention pending trial because the
defendant was charged with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
crime of violence, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
924(c) and 2.



A written proffer submitted by the government that described in greater
detail the Seven Mile Bloods, several shootings and murders
perpetrated by the gang, and the gang’s narcotics distribution activities
in Detroit and West Virginia. The written proffer also contained
information specific to defendant Brown, including photographs that
were posted on his Facebook page in which the defendant is holding
firearms. One of these photos shows the defendant holding an Uzi to
another individual’s head as that person flashes a “55” gang sign.



According to the Pretrial Services report , the defendant has a long
criminal history that involves arrests and convictions for acts of
violence:
(1) The defendant’s first conviction was at age 21 for resisting
and obstructing police, and the defendant was sentenced to one year
HYTA probation.
(2) At age 23 the defendant was charged with assault and
battery, and disturbing the peace. The defendant pleaded guilty to
disturbing the peace and was sentenced to probation.
(3) At age 24 the defendant was convicted of assault with a
dangerous weapon and assault and battery. He was sentenced to 90
days in jail and one year probation, but violated his probation.
(4)

At age 24 the defendant was charged with assault with
4

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 5 of 12

Pg ID 618

intent to murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, and firearm
discharge at or near a building. This case appears to have been
dismissed.
(5) At age 25, the defendant was arrested for felony drugs, but
Pretrial Service could find no record of this offense at the Third Circuit
Court.
(6) At age 26, the defendant was arrested in West Virginia for
possession of marijuana and possession of crack cocaine. This case was
dismissed in 2013.
(7) In 2015, at age 33, the defendant was charged with assault
and battery, and larceny. The defendant pleaded guilty to the larceny
charge and was sentenced to one year probation – which was still
pending at the time the defendant was arrested on the current federal
charges.


The government submitted the police report relating to the 2015 assault
and battery and larceny offense. According to the report, the victim was
walking through the Eastland Mall after purchasing some new shoes
when one of perpetrators bumped into him. The defendant then said to
the victim: “You don’t know what’s about to happen to you,” and the
two men hit the victim over the head and kicked and punched him as he
was lying defenseless on the ground. The perpetrators took the new
shoes, some waterproof spray, the victim’s cell phone and $300.



A police report which states that in 2014 the defendant’s father called
the police and reported that when the father refused to give money to
the defendant the defendant became irate and stated “If you don’t give
me any money, I’m going to put a hit out on you.” The defendant’s
father further reported to police that he believed the defendant would
carry out the threat and he feared for his life. The father stated that the
defendant is a leader of the Seven Mile Bloods gang.



When the defendant was arrested on the current federal charges, he was
located at his residence, which was searched pursuant to a warrant.
Inside the residence was a digital scale with drug residue on it, over 180
grams of marijuana, 24 prescription pill bottles all with pills in them of
5

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 6 of 12

Pg ID 619

different sizes, markings and color, and red clothing (a bandana,
sweatshirt and shoes), which is of significant because red is the color
associated with the Seven Mile Bloods.


The defendant had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant from 2011 for
failure to appear for a drug violation in 36th District Court.

To rebut the statutory presumption of detention and the evidence offered by
the government, the defendant proffered only the following:


The defendant’s convictions were misdemeanors and he has no
narcotics convictions;



Pretrial Services recommended a bond;



The defendant was shot “a number of times” in West Virginia and takes
“heavy pain medication” and smokes marijuana for pain, although he
has not obtained a medical marijuana card;



The photograph of the defendant holding an Uzi involved an Uzi that
had a plug in the barrel;



The defendant’s mother was prepared to be a third party custodian. The
defendant’s mother testified that she was retired, lived with her
husband, and that neither of them had a criminal record.

Magistrate Judge Stafford ordered the defendant detained on the ground that
there was clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a danger to the
community, and a preponderance of the evidence that he was a risk of
non-appearance. (R. 122: Order of Detention Pending Trial, PgID 460). Magistrate
Judge Stafford found that the defendant was a member of the Seven Mile Bloods,
6

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 7 of 12

Pg ID 620

which was a “violent gang that has engaged in murderous ‘wars’ with other gangs,”
and that the defendant’s participation in the gang “included time periods during
which he was on probation” for other offenses. Id. Moreover, the magistrate judge
noted the defendant’s prior violent conduct, particularly when “Brown and his
cohorts violently attacked the victim of the theft without provocation at Eastland
Mall,” and when he threatened to kill his own father. Id. at 460-61. The defendant
did not appeal Magistrate Judge Stafford’s ruling.
ARGUMENT
The defendant’s current motion simply re-states the same arguments and
proffers the same facts that the defendant offered at the detention hearing. The only
exception is that the defendant now claims that he is prepared to call his father to
testify. According to the defendant, his father will testify that “he is not now nor was
in the past threatened by the defendant, and further that he wishes the Court to place
his son in his home during the pendency of this case.”
By statute, a detention hearing “may be reopened” if two conditions are met.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The first is that “information exists that was not known to the
movant at the time of the hearing.” Id. The second is that the new information “has a
material bearing” on risk of flight or danger to community. Id.; see also United
States v. Watson, 475 F.App’x 598, 600 (6th Cir. 2012). The defendant’s motion
7

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 8 of 12

Pg ID 621

cites no new information that was not known to him at the time of the hearing before
Magistrate Judge Stafford. The defendant could have called his father to testify at
the first hearing, but decided to call his mother to testify instead. The defendant’s
motion should therefore be denied as a matter of law. Even if the Court were to
consider the defendant’s motion, it should still be denied because he is a danger to
the community and a risk of non-appearance.
Detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) is warranted when the court finds “that
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.”
United States v. Sandles, 2008 WL 345520, *1 (E.D. MI 2008) (Steeh, J.). The
factors to be considered are (1) the nature and circumstances of 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 person’s release. Id.
When, as is the case here, a defendant is subject to the statutory presumption
of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3), the defendant bears a “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.” United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d
939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010). Even when the defendant satisfies his burden of
8

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 9 of 12

Pg ID 622

production, the statutory presumption in favor of detention “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.
The defendant, who is a member of a violent street gang and has himself been
arrested and convicted on multiple occasions for violent conduct, is exactly the type
of defendant that should be detained pending trial, and is certainly not “outside the
congressional paradigm” when it comes to the statutory presumption of detention. In
fact, most of the evidence proffered by the defendant does nothing to negate the
presumption that the defendant is a danger to the community or risk of
non-appearance. For example, the fact that the defendant has misdemeanor
convictions, has been shot numerous times, and smokes marijuana in no way lessens
his dangerousness. Nor does the fact that the defendant’s parents are willing to let
him live in their home. United States v. Gray, 20 F.App’x 473, 475 (6th Cir. 2001)
(fact that defendant’s relatives are “willing to allow him to live with them pending
his new trial . . . is not sufficient to rebut the presumption in favor of detention”). The
defendant’s parents have been unable to prevent him from engaging in violent
9

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 10 of 12

Pg ID 623

criminal activity in the past, and there is no indication that they will be able to do so
in the future. Even assuming the defendant’s father testifies that he was never
actually threatened by his son, this testimony would only address one of several
instances of violent conduct by the defendant. It does nothing to negate the fact that
the defendant is a member of violent street gang. Nor does it negate the fact that the
defendant beat an innocent person at the Eastland Mall last year, or has a prior
conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon and assault and battery.
Nor does the evidence proffered by the defendant address his risk of
non-appearance. There is a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is a risk of
non-appearance. This evidence includes: (1) the defendant’s outstanding warrant for
failure to appear; (2) the fact that the SMB has a drug trafficking network that
involves gang members in Detroit traveling to other states to distribute drugs; (3) the
defendant has been shot and arrested in West Virginia on drug charges in the past;
(4) the defendant has not presented any evidence that he has stable employment or
strong community involvement that would keep him in this district.

10

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 11 of 12

Pg ID 624

CONCLUSION
The defendant is a danger to the community and is a risk of nonappearance.
The defendant is also subject to a statutory presumption of detention, which the
defendant has failed to overcome. His motion for bond should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA L. MCQUADE
United States Attorney

s/ Christopher Graveline
Chief, Violent & Organized Crime Unit
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 226-9100
christopher.graveline2@usdoj.gov
s/ Michael C. Martin
Assistant United States Attorney
michael.c.martin@usdoj.gov
s/ Rajesh Prasad
Assistant United States Attorney
rajesh.prasad@usdoj.gov

Dated:

April 19, 2016

11

 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG

Doc # 187

Filed 04/19/16

Pg 12 of 12

Pg ID 625

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 19, 2016, I filed the foregoing document on the
ECF system, which will send notice to James L. Feinberg, 28411 Northwestern
Highway, Suite 875, Southfield, MI 48034.

s/Michael C. Martin
Michael C. Martin
Assistant United States Attorney
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 226-9100
E-Mail: Michael.C.Martin@usdoj.gov

12