Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanthearingmotionlease
defendanthearingtrialmotionwilllease

Related Cases

United States ex rel. Emerson Park v. Legacy Heart Care, LLC, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2019 WL 4450371, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 306,613
View Case »
Thomas H. Lee Equity Fund V, L.P. v. Mayer Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 612 F.Supp.2d 267, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,100, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 11,646
View Case »
Nash v. State, 439 Md. 53, 94 A.3d 23
View Case »
In re Scott Acquisition Corp., 344 B.R. 283, 46 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 196
View Case »
Greenwald v. Eisinger, Brown, Lewis & Frankel, P.A., 118 So.3d 867, 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1514
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Will, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2023 WL 8529078

Facts

Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his detention, arguing that new information about his father's health and financial situation warranted a reopening of the detention hearing. He claimed that his father's medical appointments required his presence and that his own disability payments, which supported his father's mortgage, would cease while he was in custody. The United States opposed the motion, asserting that Defendant was aware of his father's health issues at the time of the original hearing and that the information did not materially impact the danger assessment.

Defendant asserts that his father requires his presence at home to take his father to various medical appointments, including surgeries. In addition, Defendant states that his disability payments will be paused while he is in custody, and his father relied on those payments to cover the mortgage on his father's house.

Issue

Whether the new information presented by Defendant regarding his father's health and financial situation warranted reopening the detention hearing.

Whether the new information presented by Defendant regarding his father's health and financial situation warranted reopening the detention hearing.

Rule

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, a court may reopen a detention issue if new information exists that was not known at the time of the hearing and has a material bearing on the conditions of release.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3142 allows the Court to reopen the issue of detention at any time before trial 'if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the community.'

Analysis

The court determined that the information regarding Defendant's father's health and financial situation was not new, as it was available at the time of the initial detention hearing. The court emphasized that the focus of the detention analysis is on the defendant's history and characteristics, not on family circumstances. The court found that Defendant's claims did not sufficiently demonstrate a change in circumstances that would affect the assessment of his danger to the community.

Undoubtedly, the health circumstances of Defendant's father and Defendant's financial contributions to the household were available information at the time of the detention hearing. Furthermore, Defendant's father testified at the hearing and could have provided more detailed information about his upcoming medical appointments and his mortgage payments if those issues were felt to be critical to Defendant's release.

Conclusion

The court denied Defendant's motion to reconsider his detention, concluding that the information presented did not materially affect the determination of his dangerousness.

Therefore, the Motion, (ECF No. 30), is DENIED and Defendant is ORDERED to remain in detention for the reasons previously set forth in the Detention Order.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court found that the reasons provided by Defendant did not justify reopening the detention issue.

The United States filed a response in opposition to the Motion, indicating that the reasons provided by Defendant do not qualify as grounds to reopen the detention issue.

You must be