Government’s Opposition to Defendant Mykia King’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration — No. 21-MJ-30178 (Dkt. 23, E.D. Mich.)
Summary
In this September 10, 2021 brief in the Eastern District of Michigan, prosecutors oppose Mykia King's amended motion for reconsideration of the order revoking King's bond. The brief recounts that King was charged by complaint on April 14, 2021 with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud; the complaint alleges that King submitted some $930,200 in fraudulent pandemic unemployment claims to the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency and obtained approximately $366,000. According to the government, King was arrested on August 7, 2021 in Farmington Hills while on bond, with six credit/debit cards in other people's names, a driver's license bearing King's picture and another name, and a notebook of personal identifying information; the court revoked bond on August 18, 2021. The government argues that the proposed 24-hour house arrest with family cannot stop fraud committed online.
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
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 21-MJ-30178
v.
Mykia King,
Defendant.
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT MYKIA KING’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, respectfully
opposes defendant Mykia King’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the Court
Order Revoking Defendant’s Bond. King cannot provide any credible assurance that
any set of conditions of pretrial release will protect the community and prevent her
from fleeing, nor can she show that she is likely to abide by the terms of her bond.
Indeed, King’s past behavior while on pretrial release shows a flagrant disregard of
her bond conditions, the law, and the rights of other individuals. Given this conduct,
the Court should have no confidence that King would abide by the terms of a
renewed bond. Nothing the defendants have brought forth in their Motion
demonstrates a “palpable defect” in the court’s earlier ruling revoking King’s bond,
and the Court should therefore deny the relief King seeks.
BACKGROUND
Defendant King was charged via complaint with conspiracy to commit mail and
wire fraud on April 14, 2021. The complaint alleges that King participated in a
scheme to fraudulently obtain pandemic unemployment insurance benefits. The
complaint further states that King submitted some $930,200 in fraudulent claims
(using the names of other individuals) to the Michigan Unemployment Insurance
Agency, and obtained approximately $366,000 on those claims.
On June 6, 2021, King had her initial appearance in duty court on that
complaint. She was released on an unsecured bond, with conditions. Those
conditions included that King not violate any federal, state, or local laws while on
release, and that she not possess the personally identifying information (PII) of any
other person. See Order Setting Conditions of Release, Dkt No. 5.
On August 9, 2021, Pretrial Services Officer Gwendolyn Stein submitted a
Petition for Action on Conditions of Pretrial Release. The Petition noted several
violations that King had accrued during her approximately two months on bond,
including an alleged arrest in West Bloomfield (which King failed to report and
affirmatively denied when questioned), and an arrest on August 7 by the Farmington
Hills Police Department in which King was found in possession of several credit
2
cards and gift cards not in her name. The Court scheduled a hearing on the bond
revocation request for August 17, 2021.
At that hearing, the government proffered the police report detailing King’s
arrest in Farmington Hills on August 7, 2021. Of particular note were the following
facts regarding that arrest:
• Officers observed King and another individual picking various
documents up out of the median of Twelve Mile Road. Upon
realizing they were being observed, King and her passenger got
into a white Mercedes and left the scene. Finding this rather
suspicious, the police initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle. King,
the driver, admitted the vehicle was uninsured. Moreover, the
officers noted that King had numerous outstanding warrants for
traffic offenses and arrested her. Her passenger likewise had a
suspended license, so the vehicle was impounded and an
inventory search conducted.
• In that inventory search, officers found six credit/debit cards in
King’s purse in the names of other individuals, all bearing
typically female names.
• A Michigan driver’s license bearing King’s picture but a different
name (“T.L”) was also found in King’s purse.
3
• A notebook containing numerous pages filled with names, dates
of birth, bank account information, and other PII was found in the
trunk of the vehicle. PII belonging to T.L. was found in the
notebook. In addition, the notebook contained PII belonging to
each of the individuals whose names were found on the
credit/debit cards in King’s purse.
• The Farmington Hills police contacted one of the individuals
whose name was used to obtain one of the debit cards found in
King’s purse. The individual confirmed her PII, advised the
police that she did not know King, and made clear that she had
not authorized King or anyone else to use her PII to obtain a debit
card.
• Unemployment Insurance mailings from California in the name
of another individual (not King or her passenger) were located in
the vehicle’s glove box.
• King denied any knowledge of the cards in her purse or the
notebook.
The Court ordered King detained following the hearing, and issued an order to
that effect the following day (August 18, 2021). The Court found both that “there
is no condition or combination of conditions of release that will assure that
4
Defendant will not flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the
community,” and that “Defendant is unlikely to abide by any condition or
combination of conditions of release.” See Order Revoking Bond as to Mykia King,
Dkt. 19.
King filed a Motion for Reconsideration on August 23, arguing that there were
conditions that could assure the safety of the community. Specifically, King asked
that the court place her on 24-hour house arrest and release her to live with her
father, his fiancée, and two children. King later amended her Motion to offer her
grandmother’s residence as another possible location for her house arrest.
Defendant’s amended motion states that both her father and her grandmother are
open to unannounced searches of their respective homes by pretrial services. Her
father, his fiancée, and King’s grandmother have also agreed to consent to “put
restrictions” on their electronic devices to prevent King from using them.
ARGUMENT
The government respectfully opposes this Motion for Reconsideration. King
fails to provide a sufficient basis to satisfy either prong of the relevant statutory
test under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2), when she must meet both for the court to grant
her a bond. Because of this, King has shown no “palpable defect” in the Court’s
prior ruling, which is required for a Motion for Reconsideration to be successful
pursuant to L.R. 7.1(h)(3). King’s motion should therefore be denied.
5
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148, the Court “shall enter an order of revocation and
detention” if, after finding a defendant has committed a new crime or otherwise
violated his or her bond conditions, it finds:
(A) Based on the factors set forth in section 3142(g) of this title, there is no
condition or combination of conditions that will assure the person will not
flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community; or
(B) the person is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of
conditions of release.
18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2) (emphasis added).
The government maintains that King cannot meet the requirements of either of
these two provisions, when she in fact must meet both to obtain a bond in this
matter.
Starting with subsection (A) of 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(2), it is true that house
arrest, restrictions on the use of family members’ electronic devices (or possession
of such devices on her own), and unannounced pretrial services visits are strict
conditions that reduce the danger of King absconding or continuing her criminal
activity. However, given King’s past behavior, can the Court have any “assurance”
that she will not do so? King was charged with participating in a widespread
scheme to steal unemployment insurance benefits, specifically by using the names
of others to apply for and obtain pandemic-related unemployment benefits to
which she was not entitled. She was placed on bond for that offense and a
condition of her pretrial release was that she not possess the PII of other
6
individuals. She was arrested two months later in possession of six fraudulently
obtained debit/cards cards, a fake ID, and a notebook containing the PII of
numerous people, including those in whose names were found on the cards and the
ID. Releasing a defendant on bond requires a degree of trust – specifically, trust
that a defendant will take the bond conditions seriously and will try to abide by
them, even if motivated purely by self-preservation. Strict conditions are doubtless
an inconvenience, but not a true barrier to those fundamentally committed to
evading them and continuing to engage in criminal conduct. King’s past behavior
has demonstrated that her commitment to refrain from criminal behavior while on
bond is dubious, to say the least. The government submits that King’s conduct
while on pretrial release should give the Court no confidence that she will not
abscond or otherwise pose a threat to the community’s well-being while on bond in
this matter.
The government does not possess any derogatory information about any of the
individuals who, under King’s proposal, would provide a residence for King while
she is on house arrest in this matter (other than Mr. King’s dated drug conviction,
which King notes in her motion). However, these are family members, not
corrections officers. Ensuring that King does not continue to engage in criminal
activity is likely beyond the capacity of these individuals. While King herself will
be on house arrest, her family members doubtless have obligations during the day
7
and will not be with her and observing her behavior on an around-the-clock basis.
King’s criminal behavior, which involves the use of purloined PII to commit
various sorts of fraud, is something that can be done from the comfort of one’s
own bedroom so long as one has access to the internet. House arrest is simply no
barrier to crime of this sort. While her bond conditions will preclude her from
using electronic devices, it is hardly a heavy lift to obtain access to one and use it
surreptitiously. Policing this kind of thing is much better left to King’s jailers, as
opposed to her family members and the occasional visit from pretrial services.
King likewise cannot prevail under the second prong of Section 3148(b)(2).
King has proven herself highly unlikely to abide by any conditions of supervised
release. The government again cites her behavior when placed on bond following
her initial appearance on the underlying complaint. King’s violations were not
technical or minor ones. This is not the sort of behavior that can be appropriately
addressed with a stern warning or the like. It hardly takes a great inferential leap to
conclude that King was actively engaged in additional criminal conduct at the time
of her arrest. She possessed a notebook full of PII, fraudulent credit and debit cards
using that PII, and a fake ID also using that PII. King is not an individual who took
her bond conditions seriously when they were imposed two and a half months ago.
Other than the fact that she has been apprehended, nothing has changed. Had
police not spotted King picking up loose papers in the median of Twelve Mile –
8
papers that had apparently blown out of her open car window – King would
doubtless still be committing crimes. The best evidence we have of King’s future
conduct is her past conduct, and that past conduct gives us no reason whatsoever to
believe that King would abide by any condition of bond this Court could impose.
Following the detention hearing in this case, the Court found against King on
both prongs of the Section 3148(b)(2) test discussed above. King’s motion is
therefore a “Motion for Reconsideration,” and as such, has to meet a high standard.
According to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(h)(3), in order to prevail
on a Motion for Reconsideration, “The movant must not only demonstrate a
palpable defect by which the Court and the parties . . . have been misled but also
show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case.”
King cannot meet that high standard here. Her newly proposed bond conditions,
while undoubtedly stringent, do not “assure the person will not flee or pose a
danger to the safety of any other person or the community” for the reasons set forth
above. Nor should those conditions give the Court any confidence that King will
“abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release.” For these
reasons, there was no palpable defect in the Court’s order revoking bond in this
case, and King’s Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.
9
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, King’s Motion for Reconsideration should be
denied.
Respectfully submitted,
SAIMA S. MOHSIN
Acting United States Attorney
s/ John K. Neal s/Alyse Wu
John K. Neal Alyse Wu
Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, MI 48226 Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 226-9644 (313) 226-9589
Attorney for the United States Attorney for the United States
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on September 10,
2021, I caused a copy of this document
to be filed using the Court’s ECF
System, which will provide access to
this document for all counsel of record.
S/ John K. Neal
10
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mied.358691.23.0.pdf
- Size
- 168,494 bytes
- SHA-256
- bea5486b550767b754c1e465040f0760ee35653e4a9b314802884e2785579e0b
- Original
- archive.org