• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSASUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,))Plaintiff,))vs.)Case No. 07-20124-02-CM)GUY M. NEIGHBORS,))Defendant.)
DETENTION ORDER A.Order for Detention.
On May 20, 2009, the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara,conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). Based on the evidence andarguments presented during the hearing, the court granted the Government’s renewed motionfor revocation of bond and for the pretrial detention of the defendant, Guy M. Neighbors
(doc. 165)
. The court’s reasons for detaining defendant are set forth in Sections B and C of this order.The court denied the alternative portion of the Government’s motion which asked for a mental evaluation of defendant to determine whether he is competent to stand trial;defendant opposed any such evaluation that would be conducted in a custodial setting.Defendant is
very
stubborn, but that surely does not render him incompetent. And arguablythere is some basis to suggest defendant has “delusions” (or at least strongly held opinions, justified or not) about the Government’s counsel and witnesses conspiring against him. Butnothing credible has yet been presented to the court indicating defendant suffers from anymental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable tounderstand the nature of the instant criminal proceedings against him or to assist properly inhis defense. Indeed, although it could be argued that defendant has pretty poor judgment and precious little common sense, his affect and behavior during court proceedings has been polite, attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at leastaverage intelligence
B.Statement of Reasons for Detention.
The undersigned’s comments and findings from the bench on the record during thedetention hearing are incorporated herein by reference. In addition, and as the ultimatereasons for detaining defendant, the court finds as follows:
 
-2-
O:\CRIMINAL\07-20124-02-CM-165.wpd
:
Most importantly, the court finds based on a preponderance of the evidence that nocondition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of defendant as required. To be clear, the court does
not 
believe defendant poses a flightrisk in terms of physically fleeing the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduledcourt appearances. Rather, based on what has transpired to date, the court’s concernis with regard to defendant’s apparent refusal to comply in the future with a stipulatedorder dated July 30, 2008 concerning statements about Government counsel andwitnesses, which order is an integral part of defendant’s conditions of release (doc.118). Despite being specifically and repeatedly warned both by the court and defensecounsel about such conduct being improper, defendant persists. Defendant hasflagrantly violated the court’s order. Defendant shows no remorse. He only argues,though counsel: (1) that he feels “under siege”; (2) that any violation of the court’sorder was “unintentional”; and (3) that perhaps another stern warning will serve toavoid violations of the court’s order in the future. The court will accept at face valuedefendant’s assertion that subjectively he feels under siege, something neither surprising nor unusual for anyone facing federal felony charges. The argument thatdefendant only may have unintentionally violated the court’s conditions of releasesimply is not credible. The record contains the fairly broad but still very clear language of the above-referenced stipulated order (doc. 118); significantly, the formof this order was not prepared by the court but rather negotiated by counsel and thensigned by defendant last year to settle a pending bond revocation before the court wascalled upon to make its formal rulings after a lengthy and hotly contested detentionhearing. Despite the clear restrictions in the July 30, 2008 order, defendantacknowledges he sent the e-mail “blast” dated April 22, 2009 that was admitted intoevidence during the most recent hearing as Government’s Exhibit 1. The email clearlyviolates the court’s order. In setting and managing the conditions of release in thiscase, the court painstakingly has endeavored to be flexible, patient, lenient, andunderstanding with defendant.
See
docs. 65, 104-06, 110, 117-20, 131-32, 142, 147,and 150. Defendant has returned the court’s favor by being inflexible and obstinate.Unfortunately, it is now clear defendant cannot (or least will not) comply with theconditions that the court earlier imposed with his express agreement.
:
Alternatively, by clear and convincing evidence, the court finds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or thecommunity. Specifically, the court finds that defendant poses a serious risk of ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses.
C.Findings of Fact.
The court’s findings in connection with the decision to detain defendant are based onthe evidence presented during the detention hearing, including the following:
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...