2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 815 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20652 v. Hon. GEORGE CARAM STEEH D-12 JEFFERY ADAMS, Defendant. / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(A), UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL SOUGHT CONCURRENCE IN THE RELIEF REQUESTED HEREIN, EXPLAINING THE BASIS FOR THE RELIEF. THE GOVERNMENT HAS DENIED CONCURRENE. NOW COMES Defendant JEFFERY ADAMS, by and through his attorney, Ryan H. Machasic, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) for an Order of Release pending trial and in support, states as follows: 1. Defendant JEFFERY ADAMS is charged in a Second Superceding Indictment with the following offenses: a. Count 1: RICO Conspiracy, 18 USC § 1962(d), b. Count 26: Aiding and Abetting Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, 18 USC § 924(c); 2. 2. On 08 March 2016, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Stafford entered a Consent Order of Detention Pending Trial. (Exhibit A – Consent Order of Detention Pending Trial; Doc # 114). 3. In the Overt Acts for Count 1, the Government has alleged: 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 2 of 8 Pg ID 816 a. In paragraphs 2, 5, 7, 11, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 40, 44, 47, 50, 51, 52, 56 that Adams posted writings to Facebook between March 2012 and November 2015; b. In paragraph 70 and 72, that Adams was present, in 2009, in West Virginia with Robert Brown and “member C” and that Adams had marijuana, cocaine and currency; c. In paragraph 74, that Adams was present, in 2008, at a Detroit address where marijuana, a handgun and currency were present; d. In paragraph 81, that Adams, in 2007, was present at a home in Detroit where marijuana, packaging materials, a scale and currency were found; i. The Government’s discovery indicates, at Bates 01091 (a Detroit Police Department Report No. 0709270268.3), that another person at the address claimed responsibility for the marijuana and paraphernalia; e. In paragraph 82, that Adams, in 2007, was at a home with another SMB member and marijuana, cocaine and currency. 4. Based solely upon the allegations present in the Indictment, continued detention of Mr. Adams would violate his Fifth Amendment liberty interest. 5. While Mr. Adams does not appear to pose a continued danger to the community, nor a flight risk, the Court may impose a combination of conditions to minimize these. For example, based upon the Government’s allegations as contained in the Indictment, a combination of home confinement with GPS tether and no access to social media would suffice to negate any proposed danger that is tied to the allegations. 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG 6. Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 3 of 8 Pg ID 817 Mr. Adams’ girlfriend, with whom he has established residence, will accept the responsibility of third-party custodian and has signed an affidavit for the Court’s consideration in granting bail. (Exhibit B). 7. Finally, Mr. Adams has strong ties to the community. He is a life-long resident and his mother and siblings live in the metro Detroit area. WHEREFORE, Defendant JEFFERY ADAMS , respectfully requests that this Court establish the above referenced bond conditions for third party custody, house arrest with monitoring and close supervision pending trial. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 02 June 2016 By: /s/ Ryan Hugh Machasic RYAN HUGH MACHASIC (P70251) Attorney for Defendant 615 Griswold, Suite 1616 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313.202.9551 Fax: 586.493.1177 machasiclaw@gmail.com 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 4 of 8 Pg ID 818 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No. 15-20652 v. Hon. GEORGE CARAM STEEH D-12 JEFFERY ADAMS, Defendant. / BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BOND Defendant repeats and incorporates herein the matters set forth above in support of his Motion for Release on Bond. 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3) creates a rebuttal presumption in favor of detention in this case. However, the presumption requires merely that Mr. Adams “come forward with evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of flight” and that burden of production in rebuttal requires that Mr. Adams 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. 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 that 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 Stone court emphasized 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 5 of 8 Pg ID 819 that in cases “involving multiple defendants who are not necessarily 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 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 are 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)(holding that it was not a deprivation of Due Process to deny bail to the boss and captain of the Genovese crime family who were accused of 35 racketeering acts, many and continuous violent crimes, including conspiracy to commit murder). For example, in United States v. Logan, 2014 WL 2587629 (E.D. Mich. 2014), Exhibit C, the defendant was charged with a weapons offense and the government argued, in opposition to bail, that “the Defendant has various weapons and drug offenses, outstanding warrants, a history of violent crime, and that the Defendant has not fully complied with the Court in the past.” Id. at *2. In granting bond with the conditions of electronic tether monitoring and that the defendant live at his girlfriend’s home, the court weighted the five factors as follows: (1) As to the nature and circumstances of the offense charged-Felon in Possession with a maximum term of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of up to $250,000, and up to three years of supervised release. (2) The weight of the evidence against the person-the Indictment establishes probable cause for the offense. Hazime, 762 F.2d at 37. The indictment alleges that on or about December 16, 2013, Defendant was found to have in his possession a .357 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun leading to his arrest. The indictment also alleges that the Defendant was a convicted felon at the time of this arrest. (3) The history and characteristics of the person-there is a history of criminal matters dating back to 1995. In 2000, the Defendant was charged with Assault with the intent to commit Robbery. The Defendant has 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 6 of 8 Pg ID 820 various charges of possession of a controlled substance as well as a few outstanding warrants. Most recently, in 2013, a warrant was issued for the Defendant on the charge of felony robbery. (4) The nature and seriousness of the danger posed by the person's releaseLogan was arrested for being in possession of a firearm, a .357 caliber Smith & Wesson handgun. A review of Defendant's criminal history shows various drug offenses, traffic offenses. He also has a prior conviction of assault with the intent to commit robbery. (5) As to risk of flight-The Court does not deem Defendant Logan to be a risk of flight as there are no indications that based on his prior criminal history he has failed to appear at any court proceedings, except those for traffic offenses. Defendant has various warrants. It appears that Defendant has ties to the community. He has a sister with whom he lived with previously. He also has a girlfriend who has agreed to let him live with her until his sentencing which is currently set for September 18, 2014. Defendant has also accepted responsibility for his actions and entered a guilty plea in this matter. Defendant alleges to have completed his state term of detention. There is no indication that the Defendant is unable to follow this Court's orders regarding any bond conditions that this Court may set pending sentencing. Here, as to the nature and circumstances of the crimes alleged, Mr. Adams is charged in two counts of the Indictment: Count 1, the RICO Conspiracy has a statutory maximum of 20 years and Count 26, the Aiding and Abetting Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Crime of Violence, has a Life statutory maximum. However, it should be noted that the Count 1 allegations against Mr. Adams, as contained within the Indictment, appear to be that he was posting on social media and that he was in the company of alleged SMB members; Count 1 does not contain an allegation that Mr. Adams was physically violent. As to Count 26, based upon the Indictment, it does not appear that Mr. Adams is alleged to have possessed the firearm. Regarding weight of the evidence, the Government has, in a secret grand jury proceeding in which the Government controls the evidence presented and may rely upon hearsay and interpretation that is not subject to cross-examination, obtained an Indictment. However, the discovery provided to date appears to be thin at best as to Mr. Adams such that it does not appear that the great weight of the evidence is against him. 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 7 of 8 Pg ID 821 Regarding history and characteristics, Mr. Adams appears to have one prior conviction, a drug offense, in 2007 for which he received HYTA probation. In addition, Mr. Adams has a supportive girlfriend who has agreed to take third-party custody and a mother who has been actively aiding in his defense and who offers her continued support. Regarding the nature and seriousness of the danger posed if released, there is no indication that Mr. Adams poses a danger. Mr. Adams does not have a history of violence, there appears to be no allegation that he was physically violent, and monitored house arrest would alleviate any such danger. Finally, as to risk of flight, an electronic tether with house arrest, combined with the third-party custodian, should suffice to provide a condition of bond that would allow pre-trial release. Mr. Adams’ family, his mother and 10 siblings, live in this community and he has strong family ties here. The risk of flight is negligible. Accordingly, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court review this matter and issue an order granting Mr. Adams an unsecured bond with conditions. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 02 June 2016 By: /s/ Ryan Hugh Machasic RYAN HUGH MACHASIC (P70251) Attorney for Defendant 615 Griswold, Suite 1616 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313.202.9551 Fax: 586.493.1177 machasiclaw@gmail.com 2:15-cr-20652-GCS-DRG Doc # 207 Filed 06/02/16 Pg 8 of 8 Pg ID 822 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan Hugh Machasic, hereby certify that on 02 June 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing document, with Exhibits, with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Hon. George Caram Steeh and attorneys of record. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 02 June 2016 By: /s/ Ryan Hugh Machasic RYAN HUGH MACHASIC (P70251) Attorney for Defendant 615 Griswold, Suite 1616 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313.202.9551 Fax: 586.493.1177 machasiclaw@gmail.com