Case Law United States v. Knight, Case No. 3:19-CR-0038-MMD-CLB

United States v. Knight, Case No. 3:19-CR-0038-MMD-CLB

Document Cited Authorities (19) Cited in (3) Related

Megan Rachow, AUSA, U.S. Attorney's Office, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff.

Christopher P. Frey, AFPD, Federal Public Defender, Reno, NV, Erin M. Gettel, Federal Public Defender, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant.

ORDER

Miranda M. Du, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the court is Defendant Edward Monet Knight's ("Knight") Emergency Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (ECF No. 30.) On July 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. ordered Knight detained pending trial. (ECF No. 9.) Knight now seeks temporary release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i) for what he contends are compelling reasons related to the recent COVID-19 global pandemic. (ECF No. 30.) The Government opposed the motion, (ECF No. 35), and Knight replied. (ECF No. 37.) The court has thoroughly reviewed the filings, and for the reasons stated below, the court denies Knight's motion. (ECF No. 30.)

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 12, 2019, Knight was charged in a two-count complaint with Interference with Commerce by Robbery and Use of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence. (ECF No. 2.) Knight fled to Las Vegas and was arrested on July 16, 2019, having his initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Foley on July 18, 2019. (ECF No. 4.) On July 19, 2019, Knight appeared for a detention hearing before Magistrate Judge Foley. (ECF No. 9.) On August 1, 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Knight in a four-count indictment, including two counts of Interference with Commerce by Robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two counts of Use of a Firearm During and in Relation to a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (ECF Nos. 14, 16.) Subsequently, Knight was transferred from Las Vegas to Reno, where he appeared before the court for arraignment and plea. (ECF No. 17.) Knight is currently housed at the Washoe County Detention Facility ("WCDF"), operated by the Washoe County Sheriff's Office ("WCSO"), in Reno, Nevada. (ECF No. 30.) Knight seeks an order for temporary release from custody for what he contends are compelling reasons—namely that the health risk to Knight is a compelling reason to grant release, and that temporary release is necessary to prepare his defense. (Id. ) Defendant notes that correctional settings "offer no escape and little to no space for social distancing or other similar recommendations" made by experts to combat COVID-19. (Id. at 3.)

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization ("WHO") officially classified COVID-19, a disease caused by a new strain of coronavirus, as a pandemic.1 According to the Centers for Disease Control ("CDC"), at the time this Order was written, there were 304,826 total cases of COVID-19 in the United States, and 7,616 deaths.2 As of April 6, 2020, there were 1,953 positive cases of COVID-19 and 46 deaths in the State of Nevada,3 with only 231 active cases and 4 deaths in Washoe County (as of April 5, 2020).4 The actual number of people infected by the virus is likely much larger, given the current capacity for testing, and the rate at which COVID-19 is spreading and affecting communities around the world is alarming.5

The CDC identifies certain categories of individuals at a higher risk of severe illness, including older adults (65 and older) and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions as a higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.6 The following conditions could make a person higher risk: people with chronic lung disease or moderate-to-severe asthma, people with serious heart conditions, people who are immunocompromised, including cancer treatment, people of any age with severe obesity or certain underlying medical conditions, particularly if not well controlled, such as those with diabetes, chronic kidney disease undergoing dialysis, or liver disease. Id.

Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak declared a State of Emergency on March 12, 2020.7 Schools, government agencies, casinos and nonessential businesses have closed and will continue to be closed at least through the end of April.8 Governor Sisolak, on April 1, 2020, issued a directive for Nevada residents to stay at home. Id.

The District of Nevada has also taken measures to protect the public, staff, and litigants from the risks of COVID-19. See Temporary General Orders 2020-02, 2020-03, 2020-04, 2020-05. While no cases of WCDF inmates being infected have been reported, it is likely only a matter of time before that occurs. As of April 3, 2020, three WCSO employees have tested positive for the virus, two deputies and one civilian employee.9 WCSO immediately began working in coordination with the Washoe County Health Department to implement recommended measures, such as single point entry and screening for all employees and visitors. Id. All those needing to enter WCSO for business will have their temperature taken and answer basic screening questions before admittance. Id. Additionally, WCSO began instituting additional precautions such as increased medical screenings for arrestees, increased education and awareness for both inmates and staff, and increased sanitation efforts throughout the entire WCSO. Id. There is no doubt the danger posed by the virus is real, with entire economies and some healthcare systems around the world collapsing or on the verge of collapsing as the world attempts to contain the virus spread.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

"A person lawfully committed to pretrial detention has not been adjudged guilty of any crime. He had only a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to [the] extended restraint of [his] liberty following arrest." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536-37, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (internal quotations omitted). The government may detain someone on a federal offense to ensure his presence at trial and may subject him to the restrictions and conditions of detention so long as those conditions do not constitute punishment or otherwise amount to a constitutional violation. Id.

The Bail Reform Act ("BRA") of 1984 mandates every person charged with a federal offense be given a detention hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a). The fundamental precept of the BRA mandates the release of individuals so long as the court can reasonably be assured the defendant does not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142. To the extent that conditions, or a combination of conditions, can be fashioned to reasonably provide for such assurances, the individual must be released, as detention is "the carefully crafted limited exception." Id.; see also United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987). If the judge finds the defendant poses a danger to public safety or a flight risk, the defendant may be ordered detained. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).

A. Section 3142(f) Reopening of Detention Hearing

Section 3142(f)(2) permits a judicial officer to reopen a detention hearing 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 detention hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue of 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. Two of the detention release factors (among others) to be considered by the judicial officer are (1) the person's "physical and mental condition" (§ 3145(g)(3)(A)), and, (2) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release (§ 3145(g)(4)).

Courts interpret this provision strictly. United States v. Bararia, No. 2:12-cr-00236-MMD-GWF, 2013 WL 1907782, at *4 (D. Nev. Mar. 12, 2013) ; e.g., United States v. Ward , 63 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1206-07 (C.D. Cal. 1999) ; United States v. Dillon, 938 F.2d 1412, 1415 (1st Cir. 1991). The rule requires the movant, whether prosecutor or defendant, establish: (1) that information now exists that was not known to the movant at the initial detention hearing, and (2) the new information is material to release conditions regarding flight or dangerousness. Id. ; see also United States v. Bowens, 2007 WL 2220501 (D. Ariz. Jul. 31, 2007) (citing United States v. Hare, 873 F.2d 796 (5th Cir. 1989) ). Generally, once a detention hearing is reopened, it is reopened to allow the court to receive any information, within reason, not submitted at the initial hearing, allowing the new information to be considered in context. Id. If the information was available at the time of the original hearing, the detention hearing need not be reopened. United States v. Turino , 2014 WL 5261292, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 2014) (citing Ward, 63 F.Supp.2d at 1206 ).

Courts may consider the defendant's physical ailments as a mitigating factor regarding the danger the defendant poses to society. United States v. Adams, 2019 WL 3037042, at *2 (D. Ore. Jul. 10, 2019). Once the defendant provides evidence regarding his or her physical health that mitigates dangerousness, the government must show through clear and convincing evidence the defendant still poses a danger to society. Id. ; 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2)(B). Release for a presumptively dangerous defendant is appropriate only when the defendant produces evidence of an extraordinary, life-threatening medical condition the jail or prison facility cannot treat and further shows the safety of the community may be reasonably assured through the conditions of release. Id.

Other district courts have considered COVID-19 concerns in the context of the more commonly used § 3142(f) pretrial detention framework, including the related subsections § 3142(e)(2)-(3) (statutory rebuttable presumptions) and § 3142(g) (Bail Reform Act factors). For example, the district court in United...

2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2021
United States v. Greenoge
"... ... However, “the district court is not required to start ... over in every case, and proceed as if the magistrate's ... decision and findings did not exist.” Id at ... release under § 3142(i).” United States v ... Knight, 452 F.Supp.3d 938, 946 (D. Nev. 2020) (Du, ... C.J.). Defense counsel's main issue is that ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio – 2020
United States v. Gage
"...United States v. Brown , No. 3:19-CR-131, 2020 WL 1914818, at *3–6 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2020) (same); United States v. Knight , 452 F.Supp.3d 938, 943–44, 949–50, 951–52, 957 (D. Nev. 2020) (same); United States v. Hart , No. 1:19-CR-318, 2020 WL 1814143, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020) (applyi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California – 2021
United States v. Greenoge
"... ... However, “the district court is not required to start ... over in every case, and proceed as if the magistrate's ... decision and findings did not exist.” Id at ... release under § 3142(i).” United States v ... Knight, 452 F.Supp.3d 938, 946 (D. Nev. 2020) (Du, ... C.J.). Defense counsel's main issue is that ... "
Document | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio – 2020
United States v. Gage
"...United States v. Brown , No. 3:19-CR-131, 2020 WL 1914818, at *3–6 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2020) (same); United States v. Knight , 452 F.Supp.3d 938, 943–44, 949–50, 951–52, 957 (D. Nev. 2020) (same); United States v. Hart , No. 1:19-CR-318, 2020 WL 1814143, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020) (applyi..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex