Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Voog

United States District Court, D. Utah

May 11, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHON SVEN VOOG, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DETAINING DEFENDANT

          Ted Stewart United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Review of Detention. The Court held a hearing on the Motion on May 11, 2017. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will order Defendant be detained pending trial.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Defendant is charged in an Indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm and three counts of possession of a controlled substance. Magistrate Judge Braithwaite conducted a detention hearing on April 24, 2017. At the conclusion of that hearing, Judge Braithwaite ordered Defendant detained. Defendant now seeks review of that decision.

         II. DISCUSSION

         The Court considers Defendant's request for a review of the Magistrate Judge's order of detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) and DUCrimR 57-16(a)(1). The Court conducts its own de novo review of the detention issue giving no deference to the Magistrate Judge's findings or conclusions.[1] In so doing, the Court may elect to start from scratch and take evidence-whether or not new evidence is proffered-and also may incorporate the record of the proceedings conducted by the Magistrate Judge, including any exhibits.[2]

         In making its determination, this Court, like the Magistrate Judge, is governed by the standards set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Under that statute, an accused is ordinarily entitled to pretrial release, with or without conditions, unless the Court “finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and community.”[3] The government must prove risk of flight by a preponderance of the evidence and it must prove dangerousness to any other person or to the community by clear and convincing evidence.[4]

         To determine whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of Defendant and the safety of any other person and the community, this Court considers the following factors:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense . . . involves . . . a controlled substance [or] firearm . . .;
(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;
(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including-
(A) the person's 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 or arrest, the person was on probation, on parole, or on 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.