Supplemental Motion for Pretrial Detention and Hearing — United States v. Davis (Dkt. 5, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

The government's supplemental motion for pretrial detention and hearing in United States of America v. Jonathan Davis, No. 4:21-MJ-07084 SPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, filed March 4, 2021, as Doc. 5. The motion asks the Court to detain the defendant pending trial and to hold a detention hearing three days after his initial appearance. It states that a complaint charges him with one count of Hobbs Act robbery under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951, which raises a rebuttable presumption under Section 3142(e)(3) that no conditions will reasonably assure his appearance and community safety, and argues that he presents a risk of flight. It is signed by Assistant United States Attorney Jennifer Szczucinski.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 4:21-cr-00167-HEA Doc. #: 5 Filed: 03/04/21 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 8

                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                    EASTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                          )
                                                    )
 Plaintiff,                                         )
                                                    )
 v.                                                 ) No. 4:21-MJ-07084 SPM
                                                    )
 JONATHAN DAVIS,                                    )
                                                    )
 Defendant.                                         )

            SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DETENTION AND HEARING

       Comes now the United States of America, by and through its Attorneys, Sayler A. Fleming,

United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, and Jennifer Szczucinski, Assistant

United States Attorneys for said District, and moves the Court to order the Defendant detained

pending trial, and further requests that a detention hearing be held three (3) days from the date of

the Defendant's initial appearance before the United States Magistrate pursuant to Title 18, United

States Code, '3141, et seq.

       As and for its grounds, the United States of America states as follows:

       1.     A complaint has been filed against the Defendant charging him with one count of a

Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951. Accordingly, a

rebuttable presumption arises pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3142(e)(3) that

there are no conditions or combination of conditions which will reasonably assure the appearance

of the defendant as required, and the safety of any other person and the community.

       2.     Under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §3142(e), a defendant may be detained

without bail prior to trial where, after a hearing, a judicial officer finds that the government has

shown by clear and convincing evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will

reasonably assure the safety of the community. In the alternative, the government may show by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant is a flight risk such that no condition or set of

    Case: 4:21-cr-00167-HEA Doc. #: 5 Filed: 03/04/21 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 9

conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c), (e)-(f);

United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Kisling, 334 F.3d

734, 735 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 891 (8th Cir. 1985) (en

banc))); United States v. Dorsey, 852 F.2d 1068 (8th Cir. 1988); United States v. Lewis, 676 F.

Supp. 1008, 1018 (E.D. Mo. 1991); United States v. Payne, 660 F. Supp. 288, 291 (E.D. Mo.

1987). The Bail Reform Act describes the factors to be considered in determining whether the

required conditions of release exist. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). The Court is directed to take into

consideration the available information concerning:

               (1)    the nature and circumstances of the offense charged,
                      including whether the offense is a crime of violence…or
                      involves a…firearm, explosive, or destructive devise;

               (2)    the weight of the evidence against the person;

               (3)    the history and characteristics of the person, including --

                      (A)     his character, physical and mental condition, family
                      ties, employment, financial resources, length of residence in
               the community, community ties, past conduct, history relating to
               drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning
               appearance at court proceedings; and

                      (B)      whether, at the time of the current offense and
                      arrest, he was on probation, on parole, or other     release
                pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of sentence for an
                offense under Federal, State, or local law; 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.

               THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE

     3.        According to the Berkeley Police Department, on January 23, 2021,                 at

approximately 12:30am, the Berkeley Police Department was notified of an armed robbery that

had just occurred at a Steak N’ Shake restaurant, located at 9550 Natural Bridge Road, Berkeley,

Missouri 63134. Berkeley Police Department officers were told that employee R.P. was sitting in

   Case: 4:21-cr-00167-HEA Doc. #: 5 Filed: 03/04/21 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 10

the back office of the restaurant talking to another employee. The restaurant had just closed and

R.P. and was getting ready to prepare bank deposits. As R.P. was talking to the other employee,

the Defendant, a former employee, entered the back office. The Defendant held a gun to R.P.’s

neck and demanded money from the safe, as demonstrated by the following photo, taken from the

surveillance video:




         4.      The Berkeley Police Department report further reflects that R.P. complied with the

Defendant’s demands and gave the Defendant three plastic deposit bags containing United States

currency and loose United States currency from the cash register drawer. After obtaining the

United States currency, the Defendant fled through the back door of the restaurant. Both R.P. and

the other employee who witnessed the armed robbery identified the Defendant as the gunman.

According to R.P., the Defendant had worked at the restaurant for approximately eighteen months

and had ended his employment approximately two months prior to January 23, 2021. R.P.

subsequently identified the Defendant in a photographic line-up.

                               THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE

    5.        The weight of the evidence against the Defendant is strong. Among other things, it

consists of store employees identifying the Defendant by name to law enforcement, as they were

acquainted with him as a former co-worker. Further, one of the store employees also identified

   Case: 4:21-cr-00167-HEA Doc. #: 5 Filed: 03/04/21 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 11

the Defendant in a photographic lineup. The evidence strongly indicates the Defendant is guilty

of the crime charged and thus, should be detained awaiting trial.

                  THE HISTORY AND CHARACTER OF THE DEFENDANT

   6.       The Defendant’s criminal history reflects that while he does not have any felony

convictions, he is currently on bond in Cause No. 19SL-CR06804. In that case, the Defendant is

charged with one count of Burglary in the Second Degree, three counts of Stealing a Firearm, and

one count of felony Stealing. Court records reflect that the Defendant violated the conditions of

his bond by failing to appear to obtain a GPS monitoring bracelet within 48 hours following his

release. In fact, the Defendant waited almost two months to comply with said condition of bond.

Further, court records reflect that, while on bond, the Defendant has been charged with several

criminal municipal violations, including possession of marijuana and destruction of private

property.

                       DANGER TO OTHERS AND THE COMMUNITY

     7.          The Defendant is a danger to the community. Danger to the community may be

established by presenting “significant evidence linking [a defendant] to the violent crime for which

he was [charged]” Abad, 350 F.3d at 797 (citing Mercedes, 254 F.3d at 435, 438). Strong evidence

exists that the Defendant committed a violent robbery.      Additionally, the Defendant is a danger

to the community, as he is charged in a separate case with burglary and stealing firearms.

                                           FLIGHT RISK

   8.        The Defendant is a flight risk. He is facing substantial prison time, which provides

provides an overwhelming incentive to flee to avoid prosecution. See United States v. Arndt, 329

F. Supp. 2d 182, 199 (D. Mass. 2004) (facing lengthy term of imprisonment is in itself an incentive

to flee). United States v. El-Gabrowny, 35 F.3d 63, 65 (2d Cir. 1994) (no constitutional violation

in long pretrial detention where prospect of lengthy term in prison provides great incentive to flee);

United States v. Gonzalez, 995 F. Supp. 1299, 1303 (D. N.M. 1998); United States v. Nichols, 897

   Case: 4:21-cr-00167-HEA Doc. #: 5 Filed: 03/04/21 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 12

F. Supp. 542, 547 (W.D. Okla. 1995) (prospect of lengthy prison term, life imprisonment, or death

penalty provides defendant with great incentive to flee).

   9.           Further, the Defendant’s criminal history indicates he has a history of violating the

conditions of his bond by committing new offenses.

   10.          Based upon a review of the statutory requirements, there is clear and convincing

evidence that no release condition or set of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the

community or other specific persons residing in the community if the Defendant is released.

Moreover, those same facts, coupled with the possibility of death or up to life in prison once

convicted, establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant represents a risk of

flight. Detention is appropriate.

        WHEREFORE, the United States requests this Court to order the Defendant detained prior

to trial, and further to order a detention hearing three (3) days from the date of the Defendant's

initial appearance.



                                                      Respectfully submitted,

                                                      SAYLER A. FLEMING
                                                      United States Attorney


                                                      /s/ Jennifer Szczucinski
                                                      JENNIFER SZCZUCINSKI, #56906MO
                                                      Assistant United States Attorney

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.moed.186977.5.0.pdf

Size

252,209 bytes

SHA-256

f0aa235c21ac2a7d88518222d0521d452da0c415fa0d6840e2a396919753626d

Our copy

gov.uscourts.moed.186977.5.0.pdf

Original

archive.org