Minor Memo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPIJACKSON DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.CRIMINAL NO. 3:03-CR-120 HTW JCSPAUL MINOR, ET AL.MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OFPETITION TO REVOKE BOND OF DEFENDANT PAUL MINOR

The United States submits this Memorandum in support of the Petition to revoke the bond of defendant Paul Minor based on Minor’s violations of the conditions of his bond.

I.MINOR’S PRIOR VIOLATIONS AND THE COURT’S RULING

The Court previously conducted a hearing on Minor’s violations of his pre-trial release on bond relating to his arrest for Driving Under the Influence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

A.MINOR FAILED TO REPORT HIS DUI ARREST RELATING TO ANACCIDENT WITH INJURIES

Minor failed to report his arrest for DUI relating to a motor vehicle accident with injuriesto the United States Probation Office as is required under the conditions of his bond. Minor never presented any explanation for this failure and the Court found that he had violated thiscondition. In addition, the government presented evidence of other DUI arrests to show thatMinor has a history of excessive alcohol use and that he presents a danger to the community.

B.EVIDENCE OF MINOR’S PRIOR INTOXICATION AT THE MARRIOTHOTEL IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

The government and the United States Probation Office also provided evidence at the prior hearing concerning alcohol abuse by Paul Minor at the Marriot Hotel in Jackson,Mississippi on previous occasions. The unrebutted evidence showed that Minor had been

2intoxicated numerous times in the bar at the Marriot Hotel, that he had to be assisted to his roomand that he had on several occasions passed out from alcohol consumption. In addition, the bartender at the Marriot told the U.S. Probation Officer that Minor clearly has an alcohol problem.

C.THE COURT’S RULINGS

The Court previously found that Minor had violated the conditions of his bond but did notrevoke him at that time.

So, first of all, this court has to determine then whether to revoke bond in itsentirety and imprison Mr. Minor. In Mr. Minor's favor is the fact that forthree years he has been on bond. This court has not seen any violations of any kind during this [two]-year period pending trial. That's in Mr. Minor'sfavor. Also in Mr. Minor's favor, that during the long 13-week trial, thiscourt saw no violations from Mr. Minor. We started early and went late.And he had to work with the defense team all over the weekends. And thiscourt observed no violations whatsoever on Mr. Minor's behalf. So all of that is in his favor. And because those are in his favor, then the court is notgoing to revoke bond and put Mr. Minor in jail, because those show that atleast Mr. Minor has been cognizant of the provisions required of him underthe bond. But then that doesn't satisfy the second element as to whether thecourt is going to submit an order conditions to protect the public. And hereis how I get to this. What the court has in front of it is the offense reportwhich says at the time of the accident that Mr. Minor was poorly balanced,slurred speech, highly intoxicated. The court also has before it some priorbrushes with the law or with reports from the law that indicate that he hadhad some traffic mishaps, possibly under the influence of alcohol. Then thecourt has before it this statement or this interview with a bartenderproviding his observations. All this says is that there is a possibility that Mr.Minor has a problem. This court has not reached that conclusion. But if that is so, then this court owes a duty to the public to protect the public incase Mr. Minor has such a problem and then is prone to enter a vehicle. Sothis court is going to order some conditions which are aimed at making surethat there are no problems.

Transcript of Court’s Ruling, pp. 70-71.The Court ordered new conditions placed on Minor in order to protect the public: (1)

3Minor was ordered not to drive; (2) Minor was to undergo evaluation for alcohol and/or substance abuse by someone approved by the Court. Defense counsel were specificallyinstructed to submit names to the Court of proposed evaluators; Minor would undergo anappropriate course of treatment if necessary; (3) Minor was confined to his home pending theevaluation; and (4) Minor was to avoid excessive consumption of alcohol.The Court emphasized that Minor was prohibited from excessive alcohol consumption:

Now, the bond says that the person on bond will not drink to excess.It's already there as far as I'm concerned. And in case that needs to beclarified, which I don't think it does, it means that one does not imbibe anyalcohol so as to become intoxicated, slash, inebriated. And that is thedefinition of excessive consumption of alcohol. So I did not go over thatbecause the condition of bond already forbids that. This is one of the factorsthat again brings us here, the consumption of alcohol, which the governmentcontends was excessive on the occasion of the accident. So there will not beany such, but, remember, I have also allowed probation the authority to takeurine screens on the presence of alcohol, and those tests will also indicate thequantity of alcohol consumed, if any, which means then, Mr. Minor, it'sbetter not to consume any.

Transcript, p. 75

Now, let me speak to this matter of abstinence. I didn't specificallysay that in my order there has to be complete abstinence. The bondcondition says excessive use, which I equate with intoxication. Now, if -- Mr.Minor, I don't know the answer, but if there is a problem, then someone thenwhetted to alcohol will at some point want to take a swallow of it. I will findthat out when I get my medical report. But I wouldn't want to say that if youimbibe at all in alcohol without becoming intoxicated that then should resultin a revocation. You understand what the bond condition says. The bondcondition says drink to excess. It merely means getting intoxicated. Now, Ialso recognize that someone who has a problem with alcohol cannot take anyalcohol. So if you have a problem with alcohol, then you shouldn't take any,because even to have a drop of alcohol on your lips, if you have a problem,will be to excess, because the effect that a drop of alcohol would have on onewho has an alcoholic problem is different than that drop would have on onewho has no problem. So you have to be the judge of that. But if probationcomes by and then wants a random test and that test shows an excessive