United States v. Wimbush

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TIMOTHY WIMBUSH, Defendant.

Criminal No. 19-134 (FLW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

May 6, 2021

*NOT FOR PUBLICATION*

OPINION

WOLFSON, Chief Judge:

Before the Court is Defendant Timothy Wimbush's appeal of the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motion for release ("Appeal of the Detention Order"), pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et seq. (ECF No. 571). In September 2018, Defendant was charged and arrested for various drug related offenses and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A). Despite consenting to detention at his initial hearing, Defendant later, on April 14, 2020, filed a motion for release from custody, which was denied based on a finding that Defendant had failed to rebut the presumption of detention, and that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release could adequately ensure the safety of the community. Approximately seven months after his first application, Defendant filed a second motion for release from custody, arguing, in part, that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated because the District of New Jersey's Third Amended Standing Order 2020-012, issued in response to the COVID-19 global health pandemic, had unfairly delayed his trial. Defendant now appeals the Magistrate Judge's denial of that second application for release. For reasons that follow, Defendant's Appeal of the Detention Order is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background and Procedural History

On September 6, 2018, law enforcement arrested Defendant in Trenton, New Jersey, after he was stopped in a vehicle, registered in his name, from which law enforcement recovered 57 bricks of heroin, four semiautomatic firearms (including a .223 caliber assault rifle that had been used in a prior shooting), and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

On October 24, 2018, a criminal complaint charged Defendant with conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to distribute and/or distribution and possession with intent to distribute controlled dangerous substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 1.) The criminal complaint alleged that from October 2107 to October 2018, Defendant and twenty-five other individuals conspired to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances, including at least one kilogram of heroin, in and around Trenton. In addition, the complaint alleged that an investigation conducted by law enforcement, which included court-authorized wiretaps, suggested that the participants in the conspiracy had possessed and shared firearms in furtherance of the drug-trafficking conspiracy. According to the complaint, law enforcement believed that a significant amount of the gun violence during the conspiracy occurred as a result of an ongoing dispute between individuals aligned with the defendants named in the complaint, including Defendant, and a rival Trenton gang.

As to Defendant, the complaint alleged that on the date of his arrest, officers conducting surveillance in Trenton observed a vehicle registered to Defendant parked on the street. The officers then observed an individual, later identified as co-defendant Taquan Williams, exit a nearby building carrying a plastic bag. Williams sat in the front passenger seat of the vehicle,which then remained parked for two minutes. The officers conducted an investigatory stop of the vehicle and its four occupants, which included Defendant. During a subsequent search of the vehicle, law enforcement discovered a hidden compartment, which contained, among other things: (i) a .223 caliber semi-automatic assault rifle; (ii) a Glock 30 .45 caliber semi-automatic firearm; (iii) a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber semi-automatic firearm; (iv) a Glock 19 semi-automatic firearm; (v) dozens of rounds of ammunition of various caliber; and (vi) approximately fifty-seven bricks of suspected heroin.

Defendant was subsequently indicted on these charges in a Third Superseding Indictment. (ECF No. 452.)

Despite consenting to detention at his initial hearing on October 26, 2018,¹ Defendant filed a motion for release from custody ("First Motion for Release") on April 14, 2020. (ECF No. 478.) Following a hearing on April 20, 2020, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's First Motion for Release, based on a finding that Defendant had failed to rebut the presumption of detention and that no condition or combination of conditions of pretrial release could adequately ensure the safety of the community. (ECF No. 488.) Consequently, Defendant has been detained since his arrest, and he is currently housed in the Essex County Correctional Facility.

On November 10, 2020, Defendant again moved for release from custody ("Second Motion for Release") before the Magistrate Judge, arguing that despite being incarcerated for two years, he has been detained "in the midst of a global pandemic, with no trial date scheduled, or time frame for a trial anticipated." (ECF No. 555.)² In addition, Defendant provided letters from communitymembers in an attempt to rebut the presumption of detention. According to Defendant, these letters were the product of personal relationships and included offers of supervision and employment. Defendant maintained that his aunt and grandmother were willing to serve as his third-party custodian, and that his mother, Shannell Wimbush, was willing to place her home as collateral for any bond granted by the court.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 8, 2021, the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's Second Application for Release. (ECF No. 570.) The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant's case was originally scheduled for trial in April 2020, but due to circumstances related to the global COVID-19 pandemic, no trial date is currently scheduled. While the Magistrate Judge appreciated the length of Defendant's detention, he also noted that "[t]he circumstances which have caused the delay of the trial of this case are not attributable to any party." (Id. at 2.) Rather, "the global health crisis has resulted in the postponement of all jury trials, criminal as well as civil, throughout the District and much of the country." (Id.) Further, after reviewing the allegations contained in the criminal complaint against Defendant, along with his criminal history, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Defendant's release would likely pose a danger to the community that could not be adequately mitigated by the imposition of any conditions to release. (Id.)

On March 8, 2021, Defendant filed the instant appeal of the Magistrate Judge's denial of his Second Motion for Release, and on March 22, 2021, the Government filed opposition. (ECF Nos. 571 and 576.)

B. COVID-19 and Applicable Standing Orders

In light of the exigent circumstances brought on by the global COVID-19 pandemic and the emergencies declared by federal and state officials, on March 16, 2020, I, in my role as the Chief Judge, entered Standing Order 20-02. Standing Order 20-02, among other things, continued all criminal and civil jury trials through April 30, 2020, and excluded the time between March 16, 2020 and April 30, 2020 for purposes of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act. (Standing Order 20-02 ¶ 6, ECF No. 465.) Specifically, I found that the ends of justice served by such an exclusion of time outweighed the interests of the public and the parties in a speedy trial because an exclusion was necessary to provide "a full, unhindered, continuously serving jury" in every case and "to address the reasonably anticipated difficulties in defense counsel communicating or visiting with clients." (Id.) Pursuant to Standing Order 2020-09, I extended the continuances ordered by Standing Order 20-02 through May 31, 2020, and further ordered that the time period between March 16, 2020 and May 31, 2020 be deemed "excluded time" under the Speedy Trial Act. (Standing Order 20-09 ¶ 3, ECF No. 482.)

On May 22, 2020, I issued Standing Order 2020-12. Standing Order 2020-12 superseded Standing Orders 20-02, 20-03, 2020-04, and 2020-09 and further continued all civil and criminal jury selections and trials through August 31, 2020. (Standing Order 2020-12 ¶¶ 1-2, ECF No. 498.) Standing Order 2020-12 ordered that the time period between March 16, 2020 and August 31, 2020 be deemed "excluded time" under the Speedy Trial Act. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Specifically, I acknowledged the rights of criminal defendants, including their Sixth Amendment right to a speedy and public trial, but determined that due to the continuing public health and safety issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ends of justice served by a continuance of jury trials andan exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act outweighed the best interests of the public and the parties in a speedy trial. (Id.)

Standing Order 2020-12 has been extended four times, most recently on December 17, 2020 ("Third Extension") and March 11, 2021 (the "Fourth Extension"). Pursuant to the Fourth Extension of Standing Order 2020-12, all civil and criminal jury selections and trials are continued until June 1, 2021. (Fourth Extension ¶ 1, ECF No. 574.) I further ordered that the time period between March 16, 2020 and June 1, 2021 be deemed "excluded time" under the Speedy Trial Act. (Id. at ¶ 3.) As with the initial Standing Order 2020-12, I recognized the rights of criminal defendants to a speedy and public trial, but determined that, due to the compelling public health and safety issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ends of justice served by such continuance materially outweighed the best interests of the public and the parties in a speedy trial. (Id.) In doing so, I expressly considered the relevant factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B) and found that "the failure to grant...