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. Koerber

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

August 20, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CLAUD R. KOERBER, Defendant.

          Frederic Block, District Judge.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         District Judge Frederic Block referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).[1] Before the court is Defendant Claud R. Koerber's (“Koerber”) motion for reconsideration[2] of this court's May 31, 2019 detention order.[3]

         BACKGROUND

         Koerber was previously convicted in this case of fifteen counts of wire fraud, money laundering, and securities fraud.[4] After he was convicted, Judge Block allowed Koerber to remain on post-trial release pending his sentencing.[5]

         On May 22, 2019, the United States Probation Office for the District of Utah (“USPO”) filed a petition with this court alleging that Koerber had violated the conditions of his post-trial release.[6] That petition was subsequently amended on May 29, 2019.[7] Also on May 29, 2019, the United States of America (“USA”) filed a written submission to support the allegations of Koerber's violation of his conditions of release.[8]

         On May 31, 2019, this court held a hearing on the allegations of Koerber's violation of his conditions of post-trial release.[9] Koerber denied the allegations set forth in the petition. After considering the documentary evidence submitted in advance of the hearing, the testimony of several witnesses during the hearing, and the arguments of counsel, the court concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Koerber had violated the conditions of his post-trial release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(A). The court then concluded that Koerber had not met his burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that he was not a danger to the community. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(6), 46(c). Accordingly, the court ordered that Koerber be detained pending his sentencing.[10]

         ANALYSIS

         In the motion before the court, Koerber asks this court to reconsider its May 31, 2019 detention order. Koerber argues that (1) the court should reconsider its probable cause determination, (2) the release revocation proceedings were not properly initiated, (3) the court applied incorrect standards in the release revocation proceedings, and (4) there are conditions that can be imposed that will ensure that Koerber is not a danger to the community. The court will address those arguments in turn.

         I. Probable Cause Determination

         Koerber argues that the court should reconsider its probable cause determination. In support of that argument, Koerber proffers approximately eight pages of “facts and evidence that were not reasonably available” at the time of the May 31, 2019 hearing.[11] Koerber follows that proffer with approximately fourteen pages of argument in which he contends that the evidence does not support findings of probable cause that he committed any of the possible crimes alleged in the USPO petition. For the following reasons, the court declines to reconsider its probable cause determination.

         First, the court sees no reason to revisit its probable cause determination. As the court indicated during the May 31, 2019 hearing, its probable cause determination was based on the documentary evidence submitted. Any of the “new” evidence Koerber has submitted in his motion does not alter that determination. Most significantly, the court is not persuaded by any “new” evidence that is based on the hearing testimony of J. Morgan Philpot, Russell C. Skousen, or John Belcher. The court concludes that the testimony of those witnesses at the May 31, 2019 hearing was, at best, unpersuasive and, at worst, not worthy of belief. If anything, those witnesses' testimony, and any “new” evidence based upon their testimony, actually buttress the court's probable cause determination.

         Second, the court will not allow Koerber to now relitigate the issue of probable cause. Koerber had a full and fair opportunity at the May 31, 2019 hearing to present any evidence he wanted the court to consider on the issue of probable cause. While Koerber refers to the evidence in his motion as “new” evidence, it is not clear to the court why this evidence was not available for or could not have been presented at the May 31, 2019 hearing. Furthermore, all of the evidence he submits in his motion is in the form of a proffer and is not subject to cross-examination of witnesses testifying under oath.

         Third, Koerber's arguments on the crimes alleged in the USPO petition appear to be directed toward his innocence of each of those crimes. In making such arguments, Koerber misapprehends the standard for probable cause. See, e.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371 (2003) (“The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. We have stated, however, that [t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt . . . .” (quotations and citations omitted) (first alteration in original)); Gomez v. Martin, 593 Fed.Appx. 756, 758-59 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Probable cause is a ‘common-sensical standard' that is ‘not reducible to precise definition or quantification.' Nor does it require the suspect's guilt to be more likely true than false.” (quoting Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, ...


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.