JACKIE LACEY District Attorney of Los Angeles County By: State Bar No. 187385 Deputy District Attorney MAJOR CRIMES DIVISION 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, SUITE 1100 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 (213) 257-2250 cbarnes@da.lacounty. gov Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS AN GELES PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Case No. BA481154 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL STATEMENT OF v. POINTS AND AND SUPPORTING EDWARD BUCK, EXHIBITS Defendant. TO THE DEFENDANT EDWARD BUCK: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the People request the Court to issue the following order(s) concerning defendant's bail: (X) Order to set bail to $4,000,000 pursuant to California Penal Code 1269c et seq. (X) Order to place a hold on the release of the defendant from custody until the court is satis?ed that no portion of the proffered bail was feloniously obtained, pursuant to California Penal Code 1275.1. This motion will be based on this notice of motion and motion, the ?les and pleadings in the above-entitled matter, the attached points and authorities, attached exhibits, and on such other and further evidence and argument as may be introduced at the hearing of this motion. Dated this 17TH day of September, 2019 Respectfully submitted, JACKIE LACEY District Attorney of Los Angeles County By: BARNES Deputy District Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff - 2 - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant Edward Buck is a violent, dangerous sexual predator. He mainly preys on men made vulnerable by addiction and homelessness. Using the bait of narcotics, money, and shelter, the defendant lures these vulnerable victims to his home. From his home, in a position of power, Buck manipulates his victims into participating in his sexual fetishes. These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims. Buck?s aggressive and malevolent behavior led to the death of two men in Buck?s apartment, Gemmel Moore and Timothy Dean. Not deterred by the senseless deaths of Moore and Dean, the defendant nearly killed a third victim last week. The defendant?s predatory acts and conscious disregard for human life must be stopped. On July 27, 2017, Gemmel Moore was found dead of an apparent methamphetamine overdose in Edward Buck?s apartment. (Exhibit 1) Narcotics paraphernalia, including 24 hypodermic needles, ?ve glass narcotics smoking pipes, methamphetamine, and sex toys were located in the apartment. (Exhibit 1) The needles anddrugs were found in a tool box. (Exhibit 1) Despite the tragic death of Gemmel Moore, defendant Buck continued with his dangerous, predatory behavior. On January 7, 2019, Timothy Dean was found dead of an apparent methamphetamine overdose in Edward Buck?s apartment. (Exhibit 2) As with the Moore death, narcotics paraphernalia and sex toys were located in the apartment. (Exhibit 2) Still not deterred despite two deaths in his apartment, Buck persisted in his malevolent behavior. On or about September 4, 2019, Buck personally and deliberately administered a dangerously large dose of methamphetamine to Joe Doe. (Exhibit 3) Concerned he was suffering from a methamphetamine overdose, Doe left the apartment to get medical attention. (Exhibit 3) Joe Doe returned to Buck?s apartment on September 11, 2019. (Exhibit 3) On that date, shockingly, Buck again personally and intentionally injected two dangerously large doses of - 3 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL methamphetamine into Doe. (Exhibit 3) Doe again developed the of methamphetamine overdose. (Exhibit 3) Buck refused to render aid to Doc, but rather thwarted Doe?s attempts to get help. (Exhibit 3) Doc eventually ?ed the apartment and called 911 from a nearby gas station. (Exhibit 3) Doe was transported to a nearby hospital for treatment. In addition to these three incidents, defendant Buck has engaged in and continues to engage in the exact same behavior, namely preying on vulnerable men and injecting them with dangerously large doses of methamphetamine. The full scope of his consistent malicious behavior is unknown. However, during the investigation into these incidents, the Los Angeles County Sheriff?s Department found hundreds of photographs, taken in Defendant Buck?s residence, of men in compromising positions. (Exhibit 4) It is only a matter of time before another one of these vulnerable young men dies of an overdose. As stated above, defendant Buck is clearly a predator with no regard for human life. His behavior is malicious and beyond reckless. His fetish led to the grooming and eventual death of Gemmel Moore. Undeterred, defendant Buck then engaged in the exact same behavior with Timothy Dean, leading to his untimely death. Shockingly, defendant Buck continued his path of destruction, nearly causing another fatal incident. His deadly behavior has not stopped. The People are respectfully requesting this court set bail at $4,000,000 to either deter the defendant from his predatory behavior, or keep him in custody to prevent yet another senseless death. - 4 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES The factors and circumstances that a judge or magistrate must always consider in setting bail for a given defendant are set forth in both the California Constitution and the Penal Code. Those considerations are (1) the protection of the public; (2) the seriousness of the offense charged; (3) the previous criminal record of the defendant; and (4) the probability that the defendant will appear at a trial or hearing on the case. Cal. Const. Art. I, Penal Code 1275(a)(1). Both the legislature and the citizens of California have explicitly and repeatedly mandated that ?[t]he public safety shall be the primary consideration.? Cal. Const. Art. I, 28 Penal Code 1275(a)(1) (emphasis added). These factors are ?not necessarily exhaustive.? In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 430. Examples of such non-codi?ed, albeit judicially endorsed and relevant circumstances including the moral turpitude of the offense committed by the defendant. Id. at 430-431 (citing with approval cases addressing these and other circumstances). Further, the code sections pertaining to the analogous situation where a judge determines whether a defendant should be released on his or her own recognizance provided further guidance. For example, Penal Code 1270.1(c) requires that, in making the determination to release a detained person, the potential danger posed by the defendant includes the speci?c consideration of ?threats that have been made by the detained person and any past acts of violence.? In addressing each of the relevant circumstances, the charges and allegations against the defendant are presumed true. See Ex parte Ruef(1908) 7 Cal.App.750. In Galen v. County of Los Angeles, defendant Galen ?led a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County District Attorney?s office claiming excessive bail. Galen was arrested on a Although there was formerly some dispute over the propriety of the explicit emphasis on public safety in both Penal Code section 1275 and former Article 1, section 28(e) of the California Constitution, this issue has been de?nitively settled. In passing Proposition 9 through the initiative process, California?s citizens have af?rmatively endorsed the requirement that, ?[t]he public safety shall be the primary consideration? in setting the amount of bail and enshrined it in what is now Article 1, section 28(f)(3) of the California Constitution; the subdivision entitled ?Public Safety Bail.? 5 - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL domestic violence charge and given $50,000 bail, per schedule. Galen v. County of Los Angeles (2006) 468 F.3d 563. A bail deviation request was ?led and the court commissioner raised the bail to $1,000,000. Galen argued that the $1,000,000 bail was 2000% more than the $50,000 suggested in the bail schedule. The 9th Circuit found that the $1,000,000 bail was not excessive. Id. The court stated, in relevant part: Galen?s contentions that his bail was excessive simply because it was 2000 percent higher than the default amount for section 273.5 violations, and greater that the default amount for other, more serious crimes, are likewise unavailing. Excessiveness cannot be determined by a general mathematical formula, but rather turns on the correlation between the state interests a judicial of?cer seeks to protect and the nature and magnitude of the bail conditions imposed in a particular case. Id. at 573. (See Salerno at 754.) A. In Re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 As articulated by the court in the recent case of In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006, when setting bail, a court must inquire into the defendant?s ability to pay the amount of bail ordered because that ?nding ?is guard against improper detention based only on ?nancial resources.? Humphrey at 30. Penal Code 1270.1 requires a court to consider a defendant?s ability to post bond as a factor when determining bail. However, it is defendant?s burden to show his inability to afford the bond. (Penal Code 1270.1 [the court shall also consider any evidence offered by the detained person or her ability to post bond].) Further, Humphrey did not de?ne ?ability to pay? nor did it require that bail must be set in an amount that a defendant can pay. As stated by the court, in relevant part: If the court concludes that an amount of bail the defendant is unable to pay is required to ensure his or her future court appearances, it may impose that amount only upon a determination by clear and convincing evidence that no less restrictive alterative will satisfy that purpose. 6 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL Humphrey at 31. Regardless of a defendant?s ability to pay, judges have discretion to order preventive detention in certain circumstances when the court makes the requisite ?ndings. Cal. Const. Art. 1 12 and Humphrey at 3; Pretrial Detention Reform Workgroup, Recommendations to the Chief Justice, Oct. 2017, at 52 (?In the limited number of cases where no condition or combination of conditions can assure public safety, judges must have the authority to detain individuals in custody to protect the public, victims, and witnesses.) Speci?cally, a trial court may still detain an individual after inquiring of the defendant?s ability to pay a bond amount and making ?ndings on the record that either (I) the defendant has the ?nancial ability to pay but failed to pay the amount of bail the court ?nds reasonably necessary to ensure his or her appearance at further court proceedings; or (2) the defendant is unable to pay that amount and no less restrictive conditions of release would be suf?cient to reasonably assure such appearance; or (3) no less restrictive non?nancial conditions of release would be suf?cient to protect the victim and the community. Humphrey at 17. When setting bail in an amount that deviates from the bail schedule, express ?ndings and statements of decisions are required. Cal. Const. Art. I, 28 Penal Code 1270.1 In the same vein, Humphrey cautioned against generalized statements such as ?substantial ?ight risk,? ?danger to society,? ?some risk to society,? or generalizations of future criminality, as they would be insuf?cient. (Humphrey at 32?33, quoting In re Pipinos (1982) 33 Cal.3d 189.) Thus, when setting, reducing, or denying hail, the court must state speci?c individualized facts and circumstances to support its order. - 7 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL BAIL SHOULD BE SET AT FOUR MILLION DOLLARS OR MORE TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE ATTENDANCE OF THE DEFENDANT AT TRIAL A. Bail Should Be Set At $4,000,000 To Protect the Public from Defendant Buck Public safety is both the primary and overarching factor for a court to consider in setting bail. Cal. Const. Art. I, Penal Code 1275(a)(1); see People v. Indiana Lumbermans Mutual Insurance Company (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 929, 936 (?the purpose of (Penal Code) 1275 is to ensure public safety?) An increased bail amount best serves this goal by increasing the potential repercussions for future violations and thus serving as a deterrent. This court is in the unique position of not only having the ability to stOp this terrifying saga of predatory behavior, but this court is also legally mandated to set a bail amount high enough to ensure that either defendant Buck stops his criminal activity, or he remains in custody. Accordingly, the People are requesting this court set bail in the amount of $4,000,000. B. Seriousness of the Crimes Charged In the present case, Buck is charged with one count of felony battery causing serious injury, and two narcotics related charges. For the purpose of the bail hearing, the allegations of the criminal complaint (and by analogy the arrest report for pre-complaint setting of bail) are presumed to be true. See Ex parte Ruef(1908) 7 Cal.App. 750. Accordingly, in considering an appropriate dollar amount for bail, this court must presume that defendant Buck committed the charged crimes. C. Previous Criminal Record and Acts of Violence by Defendant Buck Defendant Edward Buck is a violent, dangerous sexual predator. Clearly, in considering his previous criminal record and acts of violence, this court must set bail at an amount high enough to stop this recurrent criminal behavior. Buck?s aggressive and malicious behavior led to the death of two men in Buck?s apartment, Gemmel Moore and Timothy Dean. Not deterred by - 3 - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL the senseless deaths of Moore and Dean, the defendant nearly killed a third victim last week. The defendant?s predatory acts and willful disregard for human life must be stopped before another life is lost. D. Bail Should Be Set At $4,000,000 To Ensure Defendant Buck Will Appear for Trial Although public safety is the primary consideration, ensuring the defendant?s attendance at trial is also an important factor to consider when setting bail. The defendant has an unknown amount of funds and no ties to the Los Angeles area. He is not only facing the current ?led charges, but he is also still a suspect in the deaths of Gemmel Moore and Timothy Dean. Further, the defendant is facing civil liability in a lawsuit ?led by the family of Gemmel Moore. Accordingly, this court must set a bail amount high enough to ensure defendant Buck will in fact return to court to stand trial on this case. Based on the above, the People respectfully request the defendant?s bail be set at $4,000,000. 9 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL II. THE COURT SHOULD PLACE A HOLD ON THE DEFENDANT TO ENSURE THAT NO PORTION OF THE BOND CONSIDERATION WAS ELONIOUSLY OBTAINED As discussed above, the primary consideration by the court in setting bail is public safety. A secondary, but also important consideration, is ensuring that a defendant will appear in court. Once the court has determined an appropriate bail amount, the court must then ensure the bond does in fact serve to deter the defendant from further criminal activity and ensure his appearance. Any security providing collateral for the bond must be from a legal and legitimate source that will motive the defendant to comply with the terms of bail. If the surety behind the bond is not signi?cant to the defendant, or if it is obtained by felonious means, then a criminal defendant will be more likely to continue his criminal behavior, and be less likely to appear in court. Penal Code 1275.1 reads, in relevant part: Bail, pursuant to this chapter, shall not be accepted unless a judge or magistrate ?nds that no portion of the consideration, pledge, security, deposit, or indemni?cation paid, given, made, or promised for its execution was feloniously obtained. A hold on the release of a defendant from custody shall only be ordered by a magistrate or judge if any of the following occurs: (1) A peace of?cer, as de?ned in Section 830, ?les a declaration executed under penalty of perjury setting forth probable cause to believe that the source of any consideration, pledge, security, deposit, or indemni?cation paid, given, made or promised for its execution was feloniously obtained. (3) The magistrate or judge has probable cause to believe that the source of any consideration, pledge, security, deposit, or indemni?cation paid, given, made, or promised for its execution was feloniously obtained. Once a magistrate or judge has determined that probable cause exists, as provided in subdivision a defendant bears the burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show that no part - [o - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL any consideration, pledge, security, deposit, or indemni?cation paid, given, made, or promised for its execution was obtained by felonious means. The responsibility of the court to ensure the integrity of the bond is ?rmly established in both state and federal law. As stated by the 9th Circuit: ?The mere proffering of a corporate surety bond in the amount set at bail does not deprive the Court to inquire into areas which might bear on whether the defendant will make future court appearances if released on bond. The Court has the right and duty to satisfy itself that there is more than just a ?nancial assurance that a bailed defendant will appear in court when required . . . . The source of the security providing the collateral for the bond can provide valuable information regarding the motivation for a defendant to appear. If the bond were secured by the property of defendant's relatives, or close friends, the court could, logically, conclude that the possibility of ?nancial harm to those individuals might motivate a defendant to appear. On the other hand, if the security comes from an illegitimate source, and is merely a 'business' expense for a dealer in contraband, there is a paucity of moral force compelling a defendant to reappear. Indeed, such a source would be more consistent with a possible ful?llment of a pledge to a defendant of purchased freedom if caught." United States v. Ellis De Marchena (1971) 330 F.Supp. 1223, 1226. Defendant Buck is not employed. He has no known source of income, yet he is able to fund his lifestyle of preying on vulnerable men. He is engaged in frequent narcotics activity, and he may be ?mding his lifestyle with narcotics traf?cking. Accordingly, this court should place a hold on defendant Buck, pursuant to Penal Code 1275.1. With the hold, if the defendant is able to post bond, the defendant must then show that no part of the bond consideration was feloniously obtained. - ll - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL For the reasons listed above, the People are reSpectfully requesting this court set bail in the amount of $4,000,000 and place a hold on the defendant pending evidence of the source of bail. Dated this 17th day of September, 2019 Respectfully submitted, JACKIE LACEY District Attorney of Los Angeles County By: BARNES Deputy District Attorney Attorney for Plaintiff - 12 - MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Case No. BA481154 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, . . ORDER PROHIBITING ACCEPTANCE OF PROFERRED BAIL v. 01 EDWARD BUCK, Defendant. TO THE LOS AN GELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT, OR ANY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY HAVING CUSTODY OF DEFENDANT- PRISON ER, EDWARD BUCK: GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS ORDERED that, in the event bail is proffered for the above-described defendant-prisoner, such bail shall not be accepted for this defendant-prisoner nor shall this defendant-prisoner be released from custody unless and until this Court or any other competent court has conducted a hearing pursuant to Penal Code 1275.1 and has issued an order requiring the acceptance of bail and the release of the defendant-prisoner. DATED: THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA - 13 MEMORANDUM CONCERNING BAIL