United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR
REINSTATEMENT OF BOND (DKT. NO. 178)
PAMELA PEPPER, United States District Judge.
6, 2017, the defendant and a number of other individuals were
indicted by a federal grand jury, accused of being involved
in a fairly wide-ranging drug conspiracy. Dkt. No. 1. This
court is aware that, before the grand jury returned this
indictment, the defendant had been out on bail in state case
number 2017CF786. The court also is aware that a federal
grand jury indicted the defendant in another
case-17-cr-62-and that during the brief time that case was
pending, the defendant was released on bail.
the defendant first appeared in this current case, however,
he has been in custody, based on information that the
government has provided to various judges of this court.
8, 2017, Magistrate Judge Duffin temporarily detained the
defendant pending a hearing. Dkt. No. 5. On June 12, 2017,
Magistrate Judge Jones ordered the defendant detained pending
trial, after a hearing. Dkt. Nos. 27, 29.
August 2, 2017, the defendant's attorney asked Judge
Jones to reconsider that order. Dkt. No. 73. Judge Jones held
another hearing on August 15, 2017, but ordered that the
defendant remain detained. Dkt. No. 82.
November 10, 2017, defense counsel filed a motion, asking
Judge Pepper to conduct a de novo review to
determine whether the defendant constituted a risk of flight
or a danger to the community. Dkt. No. 120. The government
responded, dkt. no. 131, and on December 13, 2017, this
court- Judge Pepper-ordered that the defendant remain in
custody pending trial, dkt. no. 141.
March 12, 2018, defense counsel filed yet another motion,
this time asking Judge Jones to release the defendant because
of his good behavior while in custody. Dkt. No. 167. The
defendant himself filed a letter to the court in support of
this motion. Dkt. No. 170. Judge Jones considered the
arguments from defense counsel and the defendant, but
declined to release the defendant on bond. Dkt. No. 171.
court has received a letter from the defendant, dated April
23, 2018. Dkt. No. 178. The defendant-writing on his own, and
not through his lawyer-indicates that he doesn't
understand why he has been denied bond, claiming that he
proved the he “had no criminal ties to the
defendants.” Id. at 1. He explains how well he
did when he was out on bond in the state case. He also says
that he “already [has] accepted full responsibility for
the actions [he] was accused of, ” but that
“they” are “making [him] out to be
something more than that.” Id. He says that he
is writing directly to this court because he “went
through the proper chains of command and it's gotten
[him] nowhere.” Id.
court also received a letter from the defendant's mother,
Gloria Brown. Dkt. No. 179. She asks the court to have mercy
on the defendant, and to let him out on bond so that he can
kiss his children goodbye. She says she hopes that he is not
going away long, and shares with the court that he has two
sons. She indicates that her heart goes out to “all
young men who fail the system and their sons repeat
court counts this most recent letter from the defendant, the
defendant has filed four different motions asking to be
released on bond. Three different judges-Judge Duffin, Judge
Jones and Judge Pepper-have considered the information the
government proffered, and the arguments the defendant's
lawyer has presented. Judge Jones has considered all of this
three times; Judge Pepper has considered it twice. For all of
the reason that both this court and Judge Jones have stated
in various orders, the court believes that the defendant
poses a risk of flight and a danger to the community.
court has no doubt that the defendant misses his children
very much. It is rare that the court sees a defendant with
children who does not love them, and miss them, and want to
be with them. But when a court decides whether to release
someone on bail, it cannot make that decision based on
sympathy, or empathy, or pity. It cannot base that decision
on whether the defendant's children miss him, or whether
the defendant misses his children. The court must base its
decision on the factors listed in the statute. That is what
Judge Jones based his decisions on. That is what this court
has based its decisions on.
court notes that the defendant has a lawyer. He should
communicate with that lawyer, and should ask his lawyer to
help him, rather than communicating directly with the court.
That is not to avoid bothering the court; it is to make sure
that the defendant does not accidentally say or do something
that might make his situation worse. Lawyers can give people
advice for just this reason.
court also notes that the defendant states in his letter that
he has taken full responsibility for what he did. The court
does not know what the defendant is talking about, but it
notes that as of the date of this order, the court does not
have a plea agreement on file for this defendant (or any of
the other defendants).
court will deny the defendant's request for reinstatement
of bond. Dkt. No. 178. The court will not respond to any
further requests that come directly from the defendant
himself; if the defendant wishes the court to consider