Summary
finding that Defendant must be detained under § 3143 without considering exceptional reasons provision of § 3145(c)
Summary of this case from U.S. v. RauschOpinion
No. 02-40090-01-SAC.
June 5, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The case comes before the court on the defendant's post-trial motion to reinstate bond. (Dk. 52). On May 16, 2003, the jury found the defendant guilty of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. Following the verdict, the court denied the defendant's oral request to remain on bond and ordered his detention pending sentencing. On May 23, 2003, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal arguing that the guilty verdict is not sustained by the evidence admitted at trial. (Dk. 51).
Because the jury found the defendant guilty of an offense which carries a maximum sentence of more than ten years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., the court must order the defendant's detention prior to sentencing unless it finds that there is a substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted or the prosecutor recommends no imprisonment as the sentence and it also finds by clear and convincing evidence that defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2). The defendant bears the burden of proving he meets the conditions for release. United States v. Lavandier, 14 F. Supp.2d 169, 174 (Puerto Rico 1998); see United States v. Meyers, 95 F.3d 1475, 1489 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1006 (1997). The defendant argues he meets these conditions because he has filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and because he has complied with pretrial release conditions and would not pose either a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Having read and considered the arguments found in the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, the court is unable to find a substantial likelihood that this motion will be granted. When the sufficiency of the supporting evidence is challenged, the court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); United States v. Miller, 987 F.2d 1462, 1464 (10th Cir. 1993). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must consider the direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. United States v. Davis, 1 F.3d 1014, 1017 (10th Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Fox, 902 F.2d 1508, 1513 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 874 (1990)). The court must accept the jury's resolution of conflicting evidence, as well as the jury's apparent credibility calls. Davis, 1 F.3d at 1017 (citing United States v. Youngpeter, 986 F.2d 349, 352 (10th Cir. 1993)). The evidence "`need not conclusively exclude every other reasonable hypothesis and it need not negate all possibilities except guilt.'" United States v. Johnson, 42 F.3d 1312, 1319 (10th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Alonso, 790 F.2d 1489, 1493 (10th Cir. 1986)), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1055 (1995). So long as the jury's verdict is "`within the bounds of reason,'" it will not be disturbed on appeal. United States v. Ramirez, 63 F.3d 937, 945 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting Grubbs v. Hannigan, 982 F.2d 1483, 1487 (10th Cir. 1993)). Recalling the evidence admitted at trial in light of these standards, the court believes there is little likelihood of the defendant prevailing on his motion for acquittal. The court finds that the defendant is unable to carry his burden of proof and overcome the presumption of detention.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant's motion to reinstate bond (Dk. 52) is denied.