Order Revoking Bond — No. 4:23-cr-00316 (Dkt. 106, E.D. Mo.)

Summary

An order revoking bond in United States v. Direll Alexander, No. 4:23-CR-00316-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, filed March 13, 2025 as Doc. 106 (3 pages) and signed by Judge John A. Ross. The defendant, a corrections officer for the City of St. Louis, is charged with violating an inmate's civil rights by using unreasonable force. The order recounts that, as detailed in the Government's third motion in limine (Doc. 97), he requested and altered co-workers' witness statements despite a bond condition barring witness contact. The Court finds clear and convincing evidence of a violation under 18 U.S.C. § 3148, finds him unlikely to abide by the condition, revokes his bond and remands him to the Marshals Service pending trial.

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

 Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 106 Filed: 03/13/25            Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
                                             325



                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
                                  EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        )
                                                 )
               Plaintiff,                        )
                                                 )
       v.                                        )        No. 4:23-CR-00316-JAR
                                                 )
DIRELL ALEXANDER,                                )
                                                 )
               Defendant.                        )

                                 ORDER REVOKING BOND

       After notice to the parties, during the pre-trial conference on March 13, 2025, the Court

considered whether Defendant violated the conditions of his bond by having contact with witnesses

in this case. Based on clear and convincing evidence revealed over the course of several pre-trial

proceedings since September 2024, the Court is compelled to revoke Defendant’s bond and

remand him into custody.

       Defendant, a corrections officer for the City of St. Louis, is charged with violating the civil

rights of an inmate by using unreasonable force against him. As a standard condition of bond,

Defendant is prohibited from having any contact with potential witnesses in the case. (Doc. 10

¶ 7(g)). At the time of his arraignment, Defendant reviewed his bond conditions with a pre-trial

services officer and confirmed his understanding in writing. (Doc. 10 at 4). Thereafter, however,

as detailed in the Government’s third motion in limine (Doc. 97), Defendant requested witness

statements from co-workers at the Justice Center, accessed and altered those statements in the

Center’s computer system, and directed his lawyer to forward the altered statements to counsel for

the Government as discovery in this case.




                                                 1
 Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR          Doc. #: 106 Filed: 03/13/25            Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
                                             326



       After interviewing one such witness, the Government informed Defendant’s then-counsel

that the statements had been altered. Consequently, on the eve of the September 12 pre-trial

conference, counsel advised the Court that an unwaivable conflict of interest had arisen,

necessitating his withdrawal. The Court held a hearing in which counsel – an officer of the court

– averred that Defendant sent him witness statements from co-workers to produce to the

Government. The Court continued the trial date to allow the Government to investigate and

ordered Defendant not to communicate directly or indirectly with any witness or potential witness

regarding any matter related to this case. (Doc. 55, 56). Counsel later filed a motion to withdraw,

which the Court granted. (Doc. 60, 61, 65).

       Upon a finding of probable cause by the grand jury, the Government superseded the

indictment to add charges of falsifying records and witness tampering. (Doc. 68). In connection

with those charges, the Government served a subpoena on Defendant’s former counsel, which

Defendant moved to quash. At a hearing on that motion on March 10, 2025, counsel again stated

that Defendant personally solicited co-workers’ statements to support his defense. The

Government has now advised the Court that it intends to dismiss the additional counts because a

co-worker witness changed her expected testimony, causing the Court concern that some form of

direct or indirect contact with witnesses remains ongoing.

       Defendant has not denied the allegations. At the conference on March 13, Defendant’s

substitute counsel argued that Defendant did not intend to violate his bond conditions but

misunderstood the parameters, believing that he could permissibly assist in his defense by

personally gathering witness statements from co-workers. The Court finds this explanation neither

credible nor relevant to the fundamental constitutional principle behind the condition. The

prohibition against witness contact is essential to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. Any



                                                 2
 Case: 4:23-cr-00316-JAR            Doc. #: 106 Filed: 03/13/25         Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
                                               327



contact whatsoever between a litigant and witness has the potential to influence testimony and

thereby taint the process, ultimately undermining the administration of justice. The gravity of such

a violation cannot be overstated.

       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3148, a defendant who has violated a condition of his release is

subject to a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.

Although the Government has not filed a motion for revocation, the Court is compelled to address

the circumstances squarely before it and eliminate the risk of any further contact between

Defendant and potential witnesses in this case. Based on the totality of the record, most notably

the statements of Defendant’s former counsel and the findings of the grand jury, the Court finds

clear and convincing evidence that Defendant violated the conditions of his release by having

contact with potential witnesses. § 3148(b)(1)(B). The Court finds that Defendant is unlikely to

abide by this condition if permitted to continue on release, particularly insofar as Defendant

remains employed in the same facility as the witnesses in question. § 3148(b)(2)(B).

       For the foregoing reasons, as more fully stated on the record,

       IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s bond is revoked, and Defendant is

remanded to the custody of the United States Marshals Service pending the outcome of trial.

       Dated this 13th day of March 2025.



                                                  JOHN A. ROSS
                                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                 3


File and source

File

106.pdf

Size

95,703 bytes

SHA-256

92ad17a6e5ba7c9f06de655bb232704e88609b7b40aa604c4c3f02bba5bb2ba9

Our copy

106.pdf

Original

No public link identified.