You are on page 1of 28


MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION 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 AN ACCIDENT WITH INJURIES CRIMINAL NO. 3:03-CR-120 HTW JCS

Minor failed to report his arrest for DUI relating to a motor vehicle accident with injuries to 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 this condition. In addition, the government presented evidence of other DUI arrests to show that Minor 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 MARRIOT HOTEL 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

intoxicated numerous times in the bar at the Marriot Hotel, that he had to be assisted to his room and 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 not revoke him at that time. So, first of all, this court has to determine then whether to revoke bond in its entirety and imprison Mr. Minor. In Mr. Minor's favor is the fact that for three 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's favor. Also in Mr. Minor's favor, that during the long 13-week trial, this court 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 this court 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 not going to revoke bond and put Mr. Minor in jail, because those show that at least Mr. Minor has been cognizant of the provisions required of him under the bond. But then that doesn't satisfy the second element as to whether the court is going to submit an order conditions to protect the public. And here is how I get to this. What the court has in front of it is the offense report which says at the time of the accident that Mr. Minor was poorly balanced, slurred speech, highly intoxicated. The court also has before it some prior brushes with the law or with reports from the law that indicate that he had had some traffic mishaps, possibly under the influence of alcohol. Then the court has before it this statement or this interview with a bartender providing 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 in case Mr. Minor has such a problem and then is prone to enter a vehicle. So this court is going to order some conditions which are aimed at making sure that 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) 2

Minor 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 specifically instructed to submit names to the Court of proposed evaluators; Minor would undergo an appropriate course of treatment if necessary; (3) Minor was confined to his home pending the evaluation; 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 be clarified, which I don't think it does, it means that one does not imbibe any alcohol so as to become intoxicated, slash, inebriated. And that is the definition of excessive consumption of alcohol. So I did not go over that because the condition of bond already forbids that. This is one of the factors that again brings us here, the consumption of alcohol, which the government contends was excessive on the occasion of the accident. So there will not be any such, but, remember, I have also allowed probation the authority to take urine screens on the presence of alcohol, and those tests will also indicate the quantity of alcohol consumed, if any, which means then, Mr. Minor, it's better not to consume any. Transcript, p. 75 Now, let me speak to this matter of abstinence. I didn't specifically say that in my order there has to be complete abstinence. The bond condition 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 then whetted to alcohol will at some point want to take a swallow of it. I will find that out when I get my medical report. But I wouldn't want to say that if you imbibe at all in alcohol without becoming intoxicated that then should result in a revocation. You understand what the bond condition says. The bond condition says drink to excess. It merely means getting intoxicated. Now, I also recognize that someone who has a problem with alcohol cannot take any alcohol. 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 one who has an alcoholic problem is different than that drop would have on one who has no problem. So you have to be the judge of that. But if probation comes by and then wants a random test and that test shows an excessive 3

amount in your bloodstream or if it appears that you are under the influence even though your bloodstream does not show an excessive amount but probation can determine that you are under the influence unwarrantedly which shows that you have a condition, then that will be a matter that will bring us back here. Transcript, p. 76 - 77. Minor’s counsel did not submit new names for evaluation of Minor and instead submitted the name of Dr. Robert Davis, who had performed the “evaluation” that the Court originally rejected. The government had also objected to Dr. Davis, stating that he was not qualified because his areas of expertise did not include evaluation and treatment for substance abuse. Dr. Davis’ background is in the area of Mass Tort litigation claim evaluation and forensic evaluation of law enforcement officers.1 However, Minor went forward with “treatment” by Dr. Davis without the Court’s approval and then argued that the Court should not require him to undergo evaluation and treatment by someone else. The government did not object further and the Court permitted Dr. Davis to continue his “treatment” of Mr. Minor. An order was entered on November 30, 2005, approving Dr. Davis and requiring bi-weekly reports to the Court as to Minor’s status. The Court conducted in camera review of Minor’s course of treatment with defense counsel present. The government waived participation in these conferences and any request for these reports. The government has not been provided with those reports and has no way of knowing even if they have been filed or what they contain.

See Acosta v. Master Maintenance, 192 F. Supp. 2d 577, (M.D. La. 2001) (Robert Davis hired by plaintiffs’ attorneys in mass tort case to perform psychological tests on over 200 plaintiffs “in order to develop the fear and fright damages and to help the attorneys pick out their bellwether plaintiffs.”) 4




The present matter is before the Court based on the petition filed by the U.S. Probation Office. Two DEA Task Force Agents witnessed Paul Minor highly intoxicated on March 6, 2006, again in the bar of the Marriot Hotel in Jackson in direct violation of the bond and the Court’s admonishing in November. A copy of each of their statements is attached for the Court’s consideration. Both Agents state that Minor appeared to be very intoxicated or extremely intoxicated. Both agents also state that he had trouble standing up and was swaying. Minor had to be removed after making highly offensive comments to a female patron of the bar, and he was escorted from the bar by the hotel security personnel. Receipts obtained by the government by subpoena show that Minor had at least one glass of wine and four vodka drinks that night at the Marriot. All of this occurred a mere two blocks from the U.S. Courthouse and in the same bar that was the subject of the November hearing. B. MINOR’S CONVICTION IN BATON ROUGE AND HIS VIOLATION OF THE PROBATION ORDER REQUIRING ABSTINENCE FROM ALCOHOL.

In addition, Minor entered a negotiated plea on the charges against him in Baton Rouge in January, 2006. He pled guilty to Reckless Driving , and entered a no contest plea to Failure to Maintain Control. Apparently his plea bargain included a conditional dismissal of the DUI charges against him, but Minor was sentenced on the Reckless Driving charge consistent with a DUI conviction. The sentence provided for (1) substance abuse evaluation; (2) 16 hours of community service; (3) DWI school; (4) a $300 fine; (5) Court costs; (6) 90 days of unsupervised 5

probation; and (7) refrain from all criminal activity, alcohol and drug use. Minor’s sentence therefore required him to abstain from alcohol use. However, less than 40 days after that sentence, Minor was intoxicated in the Marriot Bar in Jackson in direct violation of the Baton Rouge sentence. III. REVOCATION AND DETENTION ARE APPROPRIATE. Minor has clearly violated a condition of his release and is therefore subject to “a revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.” 18 U.S.C. § 3148 (a). In U.S. v. Campbell, 713 F.Supp. 220 (N.D.Tex.,1989) the court affirmed revocation of a defendant’s bond and pre-trial detention based on her consumption of alcohol while out on bond pending trial on federal charges. The court noted that the defendant’s history of alcohol use made her a danger to the community and found that no set of conditions would reasonably assure her compliance. In this case, Minor has clearly violated the condition of his release requiring him to refrain from excessive use of alcohol. In addition, Minor’s behavior shows that he cannot and will not abide by the terms of his release - even after strong admonition by this Court in November and constant monitoring of his treatment by the Court. Furthermore, even drinking at all is a violation of the terms of his probation in Baton Rouge resulting from his conviction relating to the accident. It should be clear to the Court at this stage that no set of conditions can be imposed on Minor that will reasonably assure the safety of the community. He has already injured someone else as a result of drunk driving and has recently been ejected from the Marriot bar for being highly intoxicated and disorderly. The most appropriate course of action for this Court is to revoke Minor’s bond and order him detained pending trial. 6


CONCLUSION Paul Minor should be treated no differently than any other criminal defendant before this

Court. For the second time in five months, he is before the Court for violating the terms of his bond. Incredibly, he was highly intoxicated in the very same bar and within sight of the federal courthouse while allegedly undergoing Court-supervised treatment for possible alcohol abuse. It should be clear that there is no set of conditions that the Court can impose that would reasonably assure the safety of the public. It should also be clear that the current plan of treatment is not working and Minor is flagrantly violating specific conditions of his bond which were re-emphasized after his last alcohol-related incident. The very credibility of this Court is at stake, and the safety of the public remains at risk so long as Paul Minor remains out on bond. ANDREW LOURIE Public Integrity Section

By: /s/ Dave Fulcher DAVID H. FULCHER Assistant United States Attorney 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 500 Jackson, MS 39201 Peter Ainsworth Deputy Chief for Litigation Public Integrity Section Criminal Division U.S. Department of Justice Ruth R. Morgan Assistant U.S. Attorney 1575 20th Avenue Gulfport, MS 39501


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the above and foregoing has been sent via electronic case filing system to: Joe M. Hollomon P.O. Box 22683 Jackson, MS 39225-2683 James F. Neal, Esq. Neal and Harwell, PLC 150 Fourth Ave, North Suite 2000 Nashville, Tn 37219 Michael W. Crosby, Esq. 2111 25th Avenue Gulfport, Ms 39501 George Lucas, Esq. Federal Public Defender Office 200 South Lamar St, Suite 100-S Jackson, MS This the 3rd day of April, 2006. /s/ Dave Fulcher David H. Fulcher Assistant U.S. Attorney Abbe David Lowell Chadbourne & Parke, LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Brad Pigott Pigott, Reeves Johnson & Minor, P.A. P.O. Box 22725 Jackson, MS 39202 Dennis Sweet Sweet & Freese 200 South Lamar Street, Suite 200 Jackson, MS 39201