Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 238 views

    9th Attempt To Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond in The Yellow House Case

    Uploaded by

    Jones, Walker
    9th attempt to revoke Guy neighbors bond and this time it worked.. Due to Guy Neighbors filling a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    9th Attempt To Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond in The Yellow House Case

    Uploaded by

    Jones, Walker
    238 views3 pages
    9th attempt to revoke Guy neighbors bond and this time it worked.. Due to Guy Neighbors filling a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct.

    Original Title

    9th attempt to revoke Guy Neighbors Bond in the Yellow house case

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    9th attempt to revoke Guy neighbors bond and this time it worked.. Due to Guy Neighbors filling a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    238 views3 pages

    9th Attempt To Revoke Guy Neighbors Bond in The Yellow House Case

    Uploaded by

    Jones, Walker
    9th attempt to revoke Guy neighbors bond and this time it worked.. Due to Guy Neighbors filling a complaint against the prosecutor for misconduct.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )


    )
    Plaintiff, )
    )
    vs. ) Case No. 07-20124-02-CM
    )
    GUY M. NEIGHBORS, )
    )
    Defendant. )

    DETENTION ORDER

    A. Order for Detention.

    On May 20, 2009, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara,
    conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based on the evidence and
    arguments presented during the hearing, the court granted the Government’s renewed motion
    for revocation of bond and for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors
    (doc. 165). The court’s reasons for detaining defendant are set forth in Sections B and C of
    this order.

    The court denied the alternative portion of the Government’s motion which asked for
    a mental evaluation of defendant to determine whether he is competent to stand trial;
    defendant opposed any such evaluation that would be conducted in a custodial setting.
    Defendant is very stubborn, but that surely does not render him incompetent. And arguably
    there is some basis to suggest defendant has “delusions” (or at least strongly held opinions,
    justified or not) about the Government’s counsel and witnesses conspiring against him. But
    nothing credible has yet been presented to the court indicating defendant suffers from any
    mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to
    understand the nature of the instant criminal proceedings against him or to assist properly in
    his defense. Indeed, although it could be argued that defendant has pretty poor judgment and
    precious little common sense, his affect and behavior during court proceedings has been
    polite, attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at least
    average intelligence

    B. Statement of Reasons for Detention.

    The undersigned’s comments and findings from the bench on the record during the
    detention hearing are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, and as the ultimate
    reasons for detaining defendant, the court finds as follows:

    O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
    : Most importantly, the court finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that no
    condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of
    defendant as required. To be clear, the court does not believe defendant poses a flight
    risk in terms of physically fleeing the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduled
    court appearances. Rather, based on what has transpired to date, the court’s concern
    is with regard to defendant’s apparent refusal to comply in the future with a stipulated
    order dated July 30, 2008 concerning statements about Government counsel and
    witnesses, which order is an integral part of defendant’s conditions of release (doc.
    118). Despite being specifically and repeatedly warned both by the court and defense
    counsel about such conduct being improper, defendant persists. Defendant has
    flagrantly violated the court’s order. Defendant shows no remorse. He only argues,
    though counsel: (1) that he feels “under siege”; (2) that any violation of the court’s
    order was “unintentional”; and (3) that perhaps another stern warning will serve to
    avoid violations of the court’s order in the future. The court will accept at face value
    defendant’s assertion that subjectively he feels under siege, something neither
    surprising nor unusual for anyone facing federal felony charges. The argument that
    defendant only may have unintentionally violated the court’s conditions of release
    simply is not credible. The record contains the fairly broad but still very clear
    language of the above-referenced stipulated order (doc. 118); significantly, the form
    of this order was not prepared by the court but rather negotiated by counsel and then
    signed by defendant last year to settle a pending bond revocation before the court was
    called upon to make its formal rulings after a lengthy and hotly contested detention
    hearing. Despite the clear restrictions in the July 30, 2008 order, defendant
    acknowledges he sent the e-mail “blast” dated April 22, 2009 that was admitted into
    evidence during the most recent hearing as Government’s Exhibit 1. The email clearly
    violates the court’s order. In setting and managing the conditions of release in this
    case, the court painstakingly has endeavored to be flexible, patient, lenient, and
    understanding with defendant. See docs. 65, 104-06, 110, 117-20, 131-32, 142, 147,
    and 150. Defendant has returned the court’s favor by being inflexible and obstinate.
    Unfortunately, it is now clear defendant cannot (or least will not) comply with the
    conditions that the court earlier imposed with his express agreement.

    : Alternatively, by clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that no condition or
    combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the
    community. Specifically, the court finds that defendant poses a serious risk of
    ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses.

    C. Findings of Fact.

    The court’s findings in connection with the decision to detain defendant are based on
    the evidence presented during the detention hearing, including the following:

    O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd -2-
    : (1) Nature and circumstances of the offenses charged in the present case:

    Conspiracy to commit wire fraud; wire fraud; and money laundering.

    : (2) The record presented during earlier detention hearings indicates the
    Government has a fairly strong case against defendant.

    : (3) The history and characteristics of defendant, including:

    : Even though as earlier indicated the court believes defendant is competent


    to stand trial, he may have a mental condition which may affect whether he
    can or will comply with the court’s orders.

    : The pretrial services report submitted in connection with earlier detention


    hearings indicates defendant has a history relating to drug abuse.

    : The pretrial services report indicates defendant has a significant prior


    criminal record (although not as significant in many federal felony cases).

    : As earlier indicated, defendant has been warned repeatedly by the court and
    his own lawyer about the consequences of disobedience of the court’s
    conditions of release.

    : (4) The threat of continued criminal defamation of Government counsel and


    witnesses if defendant were released poses a serious risk of danger to the
    community.

    D. Additional Directives.

    Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(i)(2)-(4), the court directs defendant be committed to


    the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the
    extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody
    pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation
    with counsel of record in this case. On order of a court of the United States, or on request
    of any attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which
    defendant is confined shall deliver defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of
    an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

    Dated: May 21, 2009 s/ James P. O’Hara


    James P. O’Hara
    U.S. Magistrate Judge

    O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd -3-

    You might also like