UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LUIS SALAMAN (2024)

RULING ON THE DEFENDANT'S THIRD MOTION FOR RELEASE (DOC. NO. 302)

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on the defendant's third motion for bond (Doc. No. 302). In that motion, the defendant seeks to re-open the bond hearing because the state court has reduced the defendant's bond on all of his pending state court matters. (Id. at 1-2).

On February 21, 2024, the Court (Meyer, J.) referred to the undersigned this third motion for bond (Doc. No. 303), and on February 22, 2024, the following order issued:

The defendant has filed a motion for bond, which has been referred to the undersigned. The Court has already conducted two bond hearings in this case and issued two separate detention orders, one on April 21, 2022 and one on May 25, 2023. This most recent motion for bond seeks to re-open the detention hearing previously held on May 25, 2023. On or before March 5, 2024, the government is directed to submit a memorandum in response to this motion which addresses both whether the defendant has satisfied the requisite standard for re-opening a detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(f)(2) and whether the Court should conduct a hearing to address the motion. The defendant is not required to file a reply memorandum, but any such reply should be filed on or before March 8, 2024.

(Doc. No. 304).

On March 5, 2024, the government filed a memorandum in opposition which argued that the Court should not re-open the detention hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) (Doc. No. 305), and the defendant submitted a reply memorandum on March 8, 2024. (Doc. No. 306).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 5, 2022, at the time of the initial presentment in this case, the government filed a motion for pretrial detention, invoking the rebuttable presumption based on the charges against the defendant in the Complaint. The Court granted the motion by entering a written detention order. The order specified:

The government alleges, and the defendant agrees, that the rebuttable presumption applies in this case by virtue of the charge against the defendant in the Complaint, which alleges a violation of 21 U.S.C. secs. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(vi). The defendant has asked that the Court enter an order of detention without prejudice to reconsideration and has requested that the Court schedule a bond hearing on April 8, 2022. As a result, the Court issues this written order of pretrial detention without prejudice to reconsideration at the bond hearing, which will occur at 2:00pm on April 8, 2022. If the defendant seeks a continuance of the April 8, 2022 bond hearing, this written order of detention shall serve as the Court's order of pretrial detention until such time as the defendant seeks reconsideration.

(Doc. No. 8).

After granting a continuance, the Court conducted the bond hearing on April 22, 2022. The Court considered the defendant's written bond proposal, the government's memorandum in opposition to the motion for release, and the pretrial services report. At the conclusion of the hearing, it denied the motion as follows:

The Court held a bond hearing today to consider the defendant's request for release on conditions and proposed bond package. In particular, the defendant proposed to be released on an unsecured bond which would have been co-signed by multiple responsible individuals, along with conditions of release which included his mother as third-party custodian and a condition of home detention with electronic monitoring. The Probation Office prepared a detailed pretrial services report which contained a summary of the bond package, the defendant's employment history, his mental health and substance use history and his prior criminal record. The Probation Office and the government both recommended detention, and the government filed a written memorandum with arguments in support of detention. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court denied the defendant's motion for release and provided an oral ruling explaining its reasons, which are incorporated here by reference. In summary, the defendant's lengthy criminal history and performance on state supervision, especially in 2021, raised significant concerns. The Court concludes, based on this information, that the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant would pose a risk of danger to the community if released and that the combination of conditions proposed by the defendant would not have reasonably assured the safety of the community. The Court reaches a similar conclusion as to flight. The government has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant poses a risk of flight and that the conditions proposed would not reasonably assure his future appearance in court. As discussed during the hearing, the defendant faces very serious drug charges in this case and the potential for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence as to Count One of the Indictment. At the time of the charged conduct, which began in November 2021, the defendant was on pretrial release for both a January 2021 state court arrest for criminal possession of a weapon and a June 2021 violation of probation charge. Moreover, the defendant is alleged to have committed the January 2021 weapons offense while serving a term of state probation, which began in May 2020. The defendant also failed to appear in state court for a proceeding in June 2021. In addition to his most recent challenges on court supervision in 2021, the defendant has prior convictions for sale of narcotics in 2002, first degree assault in 2004, criminal contempt of court in 2016, sale of narcotics in 2018 and possession of a controlled substance in 2019. He has served sentences of incarceration from 2003 to 2012, July 2016 to January 2017 and May 2018 through May 2020. He is alleged to have committed the January 2021 weapons offense just seven months after being released from incarceration and while still serving a period of state probation. Though his family and friends showed strong support at today's bond hearing, it is apparent that the defendant had this same support in 2021, when he is alleged to have committed crimes while under court supervision on multiple occasions. It also bears note that the defendant appeared to be living with his girlfriend when he was arrested in April, 2022, even though the state thought he was living at a different address with his aunt. For all of these reasons as well as those set forth at the conclusion of today's bond hearing, the Court must deny the defendant's request for release.

(Doc. No. 30).

The defendant did not appeal or seek de novo review of this ruling.

On May 21, 2023, the defendant filed a second motion for release. (Doc. No. 142). The government filed a written memorandum in opposition (Doc. No. 148), and the Court conducted a two-hour bond hearing on May 25, 2023. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court entered the following order:

The defendant has filed a motion for release based on a bond package that is identical to the bond package he presented at the April 21, 2022 bond hearing. The Court conducted a bond hearing today and raised the issue of whether the Court had the discretion to re-open the bond hearing from April 21, 2022, under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3142(f)(2), to consider the bond proposal, given that the proposed release conditions suggested had not changed and that the Court had previously denied the request for release in a written ruling. The defendant maintained that, though the release proposal had not changed, some of the circumstances of the case had changed, as the defendant could present more information about the pending state court cases in 2021 and the facts underlying the federal charges in this case. On this point, the Court found in favor of the defendant and agreed to re-open the hearing. After considering the arguments from both counsel, statements by the defendant himself, the parties’ written memoranda, and the pretrial services report in which the Probation Office again recommended that the Court deny the motion for release, the Court decided to adhere to its April 21, 2022 ruling. As the Court previously held, the defendant's lengthy criminal history and performance on state supervision, especially in 2021, raised significant concerns. The Court concludes, as it previously concluded in April 2022, that the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant would pose a risk of danger to the community if released and that the combination of conditions proposed by the defendant would not reasonably assure the safety of the community. The Court also finds that the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant would pose a risk of flight and that the conditions proposed would not reasonably assure his future appearance in court. As discussed during the hearing, the defendant faces very serious drug charges in this case and the potential for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence as to Count One of the Indictment. The Superseding Indictment added six additional charges against the defendant, each of which carries a mandatory minimum incarceration term. At the time of the charged conduct, which began in November 2021, the defendant was on pretrial release for both a January 2021 state court arrest for criminal possession of a weapon and a June 2021 violation of probation charge. The defendant is alleged to have committed the January 2021 weapons offense while serving a term of state probation, which began in May 2020. The defendant also is charged with failure to appear in state court for a proceeding in June 2021. In addition to his most recent challenges on court supervision in 2021, the defendant has prior convictions for sale of narcotics in 2002, first degree assault in 2004, criminal contempt of court in 2016, sale of narcotics in 2018 and possession of a controlled substance in 2019. He has served sentences of incarceration from 2003 to 2012, July 2016 to January 2017 and May 2018 through May 2020. He is alleged to have committed the January 2021 weapons offense just seven months after being released from incarceration and while still serving a period of state probation. Though his family and friends have showed strong support at both bond hearings, it is apparent that the defendant had this same support in 2021, when he is alleged to have committed crimes while under court supervision on multiple occasions. And the defendant appeared to be living with his girlfriend when he was arrested in April 2022, even though the state thought he was living at a different address with his aunt. It does bear note that the Court's decision to deny the defendant's motion for release did not take into account the defendant's health issues and the challenges he has faced at Wyatt Detention Center receiving medical attention. Though the parties have been investigating the defendant's serious health issues and reaching out to Wyatt for more information on any potential treatment, they did not have that information in time for today's hearing. The parties are in the process of following up with Wyatt to determine whether the facility can address the defendant's health concerns, and, if the facility is unable to do that, the defendant understands that he may file a renewed motion for release based on this circumstance.

(Doc. No. 149).

The defendant did not appeal or seek de novo review of this ruling. He also did not file a renewed motion for release based on the health conditions discussed during the May 25, 2023 hearing.

On February 20, 2024, the defendant filed a third motion for bond. (Doc. No. 302). Though the bond proposal itself is identical to the previous bond proposals submitted in April 2022 and May 2023, the defendant argues, “[t]here is a significant change in circumstance from when Mr. Salaman was previously ordered detained in the days after his arrest, (see Docs. 8 and 30), and later when his motion for bond was denied in May, 2023. (Doc. 149). Mr. Salaman had previously been held on state court bonds, but those bonds have now been reduced to Promises to Appear.” (Doc. No. 302 at 1).

On March 5, 2024, the government submitted its memorandum in response to the defendant's motion and maintained that the Court should not re-open or conduct another bond hearing. In particular, the government argued that the defendant had mischaracterized what had occurred in state court and that, in fact, the state court had made no substantive determinations regarding the defendant's risk of flight or danger to the community. (Doc. No. 305 at 6-7). The government also argued that, regardless of the state court's actions, this Court's prior detention orders were not based on, and bore no relation to, any separate state court determination regarding bond. (Id. at 7).

III. DISCUSSION

“Under the Bail Reform Act, of which [18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)] is a part, a court has discretion to reopen a bail hearing if information comes to light that is both new and material to the detention question.” United States v. Zhang, 55 F.4th 141, 147 (2d Cir. 2022). More specifically, a hearing “may be reopened” if: “the judicial officer ․ finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). “[T]he Bail Reform Act states only that a hearing ‘may’ be reopened if new and material information is presented[,] ․ [and] therefore leaves the decision to reopen a hearing to the sound discretion of the district court.” Zhang, 55 F.4th at 148. Relatedly, “the Court is not required to reopen the hearing or to conduct another hearing if it determines that any new information would not have a material bearing on the issue.” United States v. Maxwell, 510 F. Supp. 3d 165, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). Indeed, “[a] court's prior detention determination is a natural reference point against which to measure the materiality of new information for the purpose of reopening the hearing—that is, revisiting its earlier decision.” Zhang, 55 F.4th at 148 (finding that the government's official decision not to pursue the death penalty was not “material information” warranting reopening when the district court had expressly not factored the availability of the death penalty into its original detention decision).

Here, the Court accepts the defendant's contention that “new” information has come to light regarding his bond in state court. In particular, the defendant claims that the fact that the state court has exercised its judgment to reduce the defendant's bonds to a promise to appear should cause this Court to reconsider its bond decision. But, regardless of whether this information may be “new,” it is certainly not material.

As the government argues, and as is evident from the text of the Court's written detention orders on April 22, 2022 and May 25, 2023, the Court did not consider at all any decision in state court regarding the defendant's state court bonds. That information was (and continues to be) entirely irrelevant. This Court conducted two bond hearings pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, and the statutory rules governing federal defendants seeking release on conditions. Though the Court certainly considered the defendant's conduct while on state supervision, it never took into account any decision a state court may have made regarding the defendant's bond in any pending state court action. Indeed, according to the government, at the time of the defendant's federal arrest in April 2022, he had been released on state bonds, and there were no state detainers in place. Any decision by a state court judge to release this defendant on a promise to appear is simply not material to this Court's decision regarding whether the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the community, and by a preponderance of the evidence that he poses a risk of flight. More to the point, in considering whether to re-open the detention hearing in this case, which has already been re-opened once back in May 2023, the Court must apply the standards set forth in Zhang and conclude, as the Second Circuit did in Zhang, that the “new” information relied upon by the defendant was not at all material to this Court's prior detention decisions.

Moreover, even had the Court decided to re-open the detention hearing, it would have reached the same result as it did on April 22, 2022 and May 25, 2023. The bond package that was proposed is identical to the previous bond packages. When the Court denied the defendant's previous bond packages, with the exception of the medical information raised at the May 25, 2023 hearing, it did not indicate that those denials were without prejudice to reconsideration. Given that the only change identified by the defendant relates to decisions by the state court as to bond amounts in state court, decisions which are neither binding, nor relevant, to this Court's consideration, the result of this third bond motion would not change.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, and because the “new” information relied upon by the defendant in seeking to re-open the detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2) was not material information, Zhang, 55 F.4th at 148, this Court must deny the defendant's motion.

SO ORDERED.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 11th day of March 2024.

Robert M. Spector United States Magistrate Judge