Order of Detention Pending Trial — No. 4:19-cr-00861 (Dkt. 17, E.D. Mo.)
Summary
An AO 472 Order of Detention Pending Trial in United States v. Torrence Weaver, Case No. 4:19 CR 861 SRC (SPM), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, filed October 11, 2019 as Doc. 17 (5 pages). The Court notes that Pretrial Services recommends detention and that the defendant is charged with serious violent and drug trafficking offenses, so the government's motion benefits from a rebuttable presumption. It finds the weight of the government's evidence particularly strong, including a recorded narcotics transaction, a search warrant and statements of the defendant, and concludes that no condition of release would ensure the safety of the community or his appearance. The government's motion for pretrial detention is granted.
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
Cite this document
“Order of Detention Pending Trial — No. 4:19-cr-00861 (Dkt. 17, E.D. Mo.).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/order-of-detention-pending-trial-no-4-19-cr-00861-dkt-17-e-d-mo-b0ac6599f3/
, SHA-256 a3cd77d0417a83e2c50b2663be1152198d151a5cc1715bb6cc1a94e43f4011d4.Full text
Case: 4:19-cr-00861-SRC Doc. #: 17 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 1 of 5 PageID #: 24
AO 472 (Rev. 09/16) Order of Detention Pending Trial
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
Eastern District of Missouri
United States of America )
v. )
) Case No. 4:19 CR 861 SRC (SPM)
TORRENCE WEAVER ) 4:19 MJ 1426 JMB
Defendant )
ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL
Part I - Eligibility for Detention
Upon the
Motion of the Government attorney pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1), or
Motion of the Government or Court’s own motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2),
the Court held a detention hearing and found that detention is warranted. This order sets forth the Court’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), in addition to any other findings made at the hearing.
Part II - Findings of Fact and Law as to Presumptions under § 3142(e)
A. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(2) (previous violator): There is a rebuttable
presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person
and the community because the following conditions have been met:
(1) the defendant is charged with one of the following crimes described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1):
(a) a crime of violence, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591, or an offense listed in 18 U.S.C.
§ 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed; or
(b) an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death; or
(c) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act
(21 U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508); or
(d) any felony if such person has been convicted of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs
(a) through (c) of this paragraph, or two or more State or local offenses that would have been offenses
described in subparagraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph if a circumstance giving rise to Federal
jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses; or
(e) any felony that is not otherwise a crime of violence but involves:
(i) a minor victim; (ii) the possession of a firearm or destructive device (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921);
(iii) any other dangerous weapon; or (iv) a failure to register under 18 U.S.C. § 2250; and
(2) the defendant has previously been convicted of a Federal offense that is described in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f)(1), or of a State or local offense that would have been such an offense if a circumstance giving rise
to Federal jurisdiction had existed; and
(3) the offense described in paragraph (2) above for which the defendant has been convicted was
committed while the defendant was on release pending trial for a Federal, State, or local offense; and
(4) a period of not more than five years has elapsed since the date of conviction, or the release of the
defendant from imprisonment, for the offense described in paragraph (2) above, whichever is later.
Page 1 of 5
Case: 4:19-cr-00861-SRC Doc. #: 17 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 2 of 5 PageID #: 25
AO 472 (Rev. 09/16) Order of Detention Pending Trial
B. Rebuttable Presumption Arises Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3) (narcotics, firearm, other offenses): There is a
rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the
defendant as required and the safety of the community because there is probable cause to believe that the defendant
committed one or more of the following offenses:
(1) an offense for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed in the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801-904), the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21
U.S.C. §§ 951-971), or Chapter 705 of Title 46, U.S.C. (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501-70508);
(2) an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c), 956(a), or 2332b;
(3) an offense listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years
or more is prescribed;
(4) an offense under Chapter 77 of Title 18, U.S.C. (18 U.S.C. §§ 1581-1597) for which a maximum term of
imprisonment of 20 years or more is prescribed; or
(5) an offense involving a minor victim under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 1591, 2241, 2242, 2244(a)(1), 2245,
2251, 2251A, 2252(a)(1), 2252(a)(2), 2252(a)(3), 2252A(a)(1), 2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(3), 2252A(a)(4),
2260, 2421, 2422, 2423, or 2425.
C. Conclusions Regarding Applicability of Any Presumption Established Above
The defendant has not introduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption above.
OR
The defendant has presented evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption, but after considering the
presumption and the other factors discussed below, detention is warranted.
Part III - Analysis and Statement of the Reasons for Detention
After considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) and the information presented at the detention hearing,
the Court concludes that the defendant must be detained pending trial because the Government has proven:
By clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure
the safety of any other person and the community.
By a preponderance of evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably assure
the defendant’s appearance as required.
In addition to any findings made on the record at the hearing, the reasons for detention include the following:
Weight of evidence against the defendant is strong
Subject to lengthy period of incarceration if convicted
Prior criminal history
Participation in criminal activity while on probation, parole, or supervision
History of violence or use of weapons
History of alcohol or substance abuse
Lack of stable employment
Lack of stable residence
Lack of financially responsible sureties
Lack of significant community or family ties to this district
Significant family or other ties outside the United States
Page 2 of 5
Case: 4:19-cr-00861-SRC Doc. #: 17 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 3 of 5 PageID #: 26
AO 472 (Rev. 09/16) Order of Detention Pending Trial
Lack of legal status in the United States
Subject to removal or deportation after serving any period of incarceration
Prior failure to appear in court as ordered
Prior attempt(s) to evade law enforcement
Use of alias(es) or false documents
Background information unknown or unverified
Prior violations of probation, parole, or supervised release
OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION:
At the detention hearing, the parties had no objection to the factual background information set forth in the
Pretrial Services Bail Report dated 10/3/2019. The undersigned adopts and incorporates by reference herein the
facts set out in that Report. The parties proffered additional information which the undersigned has considered.
Pretrial Services recommends detention.
Defendant is charged with serious violent and drug trafficking offenses. Therefore, the government’s
detention motion in this case is aided by a rebuttable presumption that no condition or combination of
conditions will reasonably assure Defendant’s appearance as required and the safety of the community. In
response to this presumption, a defendant must produce some evidence that there are conditions of release that
will reasonably assure that he will not flee and will not pose a danger to the community. In this regard,
however, the burden of proof remains with the government, and at all times Defendant retains his constitutional
presumption of innocence. See United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003) (“‘In a presumption
case … a defendant bears a limited burden of production—not a burden of persuasion—to rebut the
presumption by coming forward with evidence he does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of
flight.’”) (quoting United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436 (2nd Cir. 2001)). Moreover, even if a
defendant meets his burden of production, “the presumption favoring detention does not disappear, but remains
for consideration.” Abad, 350 F.3d at 797. Further, the undersigned may also consider Congress’s finding that
drug traffickers pose special risks of flight and a danger to the community.
** CONTINUED ON ATTACHED SHEET(s) **
Part IV - Directions Regarding Detention
The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General or to the Attorney General’s designated representative
for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or
being held in custody pending appeal. The defendant must be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private consultation
with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, the
person in charge of the corrections facility must deliver the defendant to a United States Marshal for the purpose of an
appearance in connection with a court proceeding.
Date: 10/11/2019 /s/ John M. Bodenhausen
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 3 of 5
Case: 4:19-cr-00861-SRC Doc. #: 17 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 4 of 5 PageID #: 27
OTHER REASONS OR FURTHER EXPLANATION: (continued)
Defendant was initially charged by complaint with drug trafficking and a firearms offense. The Court
initially set the detention in this matter for October 4, 2019. At that time, Defendant’s attorney requested a
continuance so that she could investigate the circumstances associated with Defendant’s probation status in
Arkansas. The detention hearing was continued until October 10, 2019.
At the October 10th detention hearing, Defense Counsel represented that, in September 2018, Defendant
received a suspended imposition of sentence in Arkansas, with a 2-year term of unsupervised probation that
could be extended to 120 months. Defense Counsel proffered that she contacted a lawyer in Arkansas who
advised, in substance, that it would be hard to predict whether Defendant’s probation would be revoked.
Defendant asked for release on bond, noting that he has a stable home with his fiancé and their two-year-old
child. Defendant acknowledged his substance abuse and prior failure to appear, but he believes those concerns
would be managed with conditions of release.
The government represented that the Grand Jury had returned a true bill and that Defendant had been
indicted on the same charges reflected in the original complaint. [The undersigned confirmed the Indictment
after the hearing.] The government persisted in its request for pretrial detention. The government proffered
facts and circumstances demonstrating the strength of its evidence. That evidence included a controlled
purchase of 185 gm of methamphetamine in late September 2019. That purchase was recorded. Agents
executed a search warrant at Defendant’s residence on October 1, 2019. Defendant was arrested and found to
be in possession of a loaded handgun as well as heroin and methamphetamine packaged for distribution.
Defendant reportedly admitted that the drugs and gun belonged to him.
The undersigned finds that Defendant did not proffer enough facts to fully rebut the presumption favoring
detention. In particular, Defendant offered insufficient information insofar as the presumption relates to his
continued danger to the community. Even if Defendant has offered sufficient facts to fully rebut the
presumption, based on the entire record before the Court, the undersigned concludes that there is no condition,
or combination of conditions, that would ensure Defendant’s appearance as well as the safety of the community.
Defendant is currently on probation for felon drug distribution in Arkansas. 1 For the limited purpose of
deciding the issue of release or detention pending trial, the undersigned finds that the weight of the
government’s evidence is particularly strong—it includes a recorded narcotics transaction, a search warrant, and
statements of Defendant. Additionally, Defendant is unemployed; his fiancé reported that she does not know
how he supports himself. The record also supports a conclusion that Defendant’s proffered residence was used
in connection with his narcotics trafficking activities. This connection is made even more concerning because
Page 4 of 5
Case: 4:19-cr-00861-SRC Doc. #: 17 Filed: 10/11/19 Page: 5 of 5 PageID #: 28
there is reportedly a toddler living at that residence. Defendant is daily user of cannabinoids and a weekly user
of ecstasy.
Based on the record before the Court, the undersigned concludes that the government has met its burden of
proof. There is no condition, or combination of conditions, that would reasonably ensure the safety of the
community or Defendant’s appearance if released. The government’s motion for pretrial detention is granted.
1
Although Defendant proffered that his probation in Arkansas may not be revoked, Pretrial Services reported
that staff in the prosecutor’s office in Arkansas indicated that the prosecutor would likely seek to revoke
Defendant’s probation.
Page 5 of 5
File and source
- File
- 17.pdf
- Size
- 59,640 bytes
- SHA-256
- a3cd77d0417a83e2c50b2663be1152198d151a5cc1715bb6cc1a94e43f4011d4
- Our copy
- 17.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.