Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Motion to release Guy neighbors from pre-trial detention

Motion to release Guy neighbors from pre-trial detention Motion to release Guy neighbors from pre-trial detention Jw 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES, )) Plaintiff, )) v. ) Case No. 07-20124-02-CM ) GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )) Defendant. ) DEFENDANT GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS'S MOTION Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors, by and through his counsel, hereby respectfully moves the Court to reinstate the pretrial release order previously entered in this case, revoked by Detention Order, Document # 175, on May 20, 2009. Mr. Neighbors seeks release as the findings against him do not support detention under 18 U.S.C. ' 3142. In support of this motion Mr. Neighbors states the following: FOR REINSTATEMENT OF PRETRIAL RELEASE Mr. Neighbors was ordered detained after a hearing on the Government=s Renewed Motion to Revoke Defendant=s Bond, Document # 165. Magistrate Judge O=Hara set out the reasons for detaining Mr. Neighbors in the Detention Order, Document # 175. The Court stated that the most important reason for detention was that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of Mr. Neighbors. However, the Court immediately stated that it did not believe that Mr. Neighbors Aposes a flight risk in terms of physically fleeing the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduled court appearances.@ Previously the Court had noted that Mr. Neighbors= Aaffect and behavior during court proceedings has been polite, Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 1 of 5 2 attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at least average intelligence.@ There is obviously no reason to detain Mr. Neighbors on the question of whether he will appear in court as directed. The Court found that he would not flee the jurisdiction nor does the Court believe he will fail to appear as ordered. Indeed, Mr. Neighbors has never failed to appear as ordered. The Court listed as an alternative reason for detaining Mr. Neighbors was that the Court could find no condition or combination of conditions which would Areasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.@ The court added: ASpecifically, the court finds that defendant poses a serious risk of ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses.@ The Court followed the language of 18 U.S.C. ' 3142 (g) in its Findings of Fact. The Court noted, under the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, that Mr. Neighbors is charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. None of these charges are violent or create a risk to the safety of any person or the community. The Court noted its belief that the Government appears to have a fairly strong case against Mr. Neighbors. Regardless of this opinion, Mr. Neighbors still enjoys a presumption of innocence. The Court reviewed the history and characteristics of Mr. Neighbors. The Court indicated a suspicion that Mr. Neighbors suffers from a mental condition which might affect his ability to comply with court orders. The Court concluded, however, there was insufficient evidence to support that suspicion. The Court referred to the pretrial services report and its indication that Mr. Neighbors has a history of drug abuse. However, the pretrial services report Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 2 of 5 3 indicates that Mr. Neighbors had only four positive drug tests. Those tests were positive for marijuana and occurred on December 27, 2006, June 25, 2007, July 5, 2007, and July 18, 2007. All drug tests since then have been negative. Thus, there has been no indication of drug use for the past two years. This surely shows that Mr. Neighbors has been able and willing to comply with court orders to refrain from the use of drugs. It is certainly evidence that he has no drug addiction or abuse issues which have not been successfully dealt with. It is proof that the court can impose conditions or a combination of conditions of pretrial release that would reasonably assure the safety

No comments: