Paul Minor’s ‘Emergency’ Motion for Release

Government’s Opposition to Minor’s ‘Emergency’ Motion

I. MINOR REPEATEDLY VIOLATED THE CONDITIONS OF HIS PRETRIAL RELEASE, LEADING THE DISTRICT COURT TO CONCLUDE, IN A FINDING AFFIRMED BY THIS COURT, THAT HE WOULD NOT COMPLYWITH ANY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE.

Minor’s present request for bond pending appeal requires a review of the prior proceedin~s relating to his release. Following his indictment, the district court released N1inor on a $10,000 personal recognizance bond pending trial. Ex. Gat 2. After Mlnor was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol following an automobile accident, the district court held a hearing on November 7,I . 2005, to determine whether he had violated the terms of his release. Although the I, ” district court de~ermined that Minor committed a violation, it did not order him j detained. Instead, it imposed additional terms and conditions to his release, including a Court-monitored treatment plan for alcohol abuse and a prohibition on driving. Ex. Eat 1. Minor waS then involved in another alcohol-related incident at a hotel bar, and the district ~ourt again considered the matter of his bond. On April 5, 2006, the district court found for a second time that Minor had violated the terms of his pre-trial release and ordered him detained pending trial. Ex. A. It quickly , . reconsidered this decision, however, when Minor’s counsel requested that he be released into the’ custody of COPAC, an inpatient alcohol and substance abuse center.

On April 14, 2006, the district court granted this request, and Minor remained under treatment until August 8, 2006. Exs. B & C. On August 17, 2006, following another hearing, the district court ordered Minor released 0n bond subject to specific conditions, including home confinement and electronic monitoring. Ex. E at 2. After Minor proposed a schedule that would have required electronic monitoring for only two waking hours a day, the idistrict court issued an order on August 24, 2006 making clear that Minor was to remain under electronic monitoring “with no exceptions unless i otherwise ordered by the Court.” Ex. D at 2. ! I Despite this unambiguous order, Minor repeatedly violated his conditions of release. On August 24, 2006, he left the range of his electronic monitoring equipment for fifty minutes. Ex. Eat 2-3. Then, on September 5, 2006, Minor left home to meet with an expert witness at a restaurant that served alcohol, even though the distri.ct court had denied Minor’s request to attend this meeting. Id. . These incidents ~ed to additional hearings before the district court on September 8 and 15, 2006, after which Minor’s bond was again revoked and he was ordered detained pendin~ trial. Id. at 1-4. The district court found, by clear and i convincing evidence, that Minor had violated the conditions of his pretrial release, that he was unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions of release and that there were no conditions or set of conditions of release that would , ‘ assure that Minor would not pose a danger to the safety of the community. Id. at 3-4. 1 Minor appealed to this Court, which affinned in a per curiam opinion. Ex. I F. This Court concluded that “the record adequately supports the district court’s I conclusion that Minor violated his conditions of release and would be unlikely to ‘ abide by any copdition or combination of conditions of release.” Id. at 4. , Moreover, the Court noted that “these findings alone are sufficient to justify revocation and detention; a court need not also find that the defendant will flee or pose a danger td the community.” Id. at 3. I On March 30, 2007, the jury convicted Minor on all counts. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court denied Minor’s motion for release, based on I its previous finciings. 3/30/07 Tr. 5002-07. The district court also denied Minor’s motions to stay the sentence pending appeal. Ex. Hat 3. I :

On July Ii, 2008, Minor moved this Court for bond pending appeal, arguing, i. inter alia, that his wife’s illness warranted immediate release. Ex. I at 1, 10-11. The governmen~ opposed Minor’s motion on the ground that the district court’s Minor continued to move the district court for his release. Ex. G at 1. I’ The district court denied these requests in a written order on March 2, 2007. Ex. G. 4 findings precluded his release. In an order dated August 15, 2008, Judge Owen concluded that ‘!Minor has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to pose a danger to the safety of the community if released.” Ex. 1. Minor thbn petitioned for reconsideration of this order, asking that his release request be remanded for an evidentiary hearing before a different judge. Ex. K. His motion was denied by a panel of this Court on October 17, 2008. Ex. ! L.