Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Juan Manuel Rodriguez, A/K/A "Al,", 950 F.2d 85, 2d Cir. (1991)
United States v. Juan Manuel Rodriguez, A/K/A "Al,", 950 F.2d 85, 2d Cir. (1991)
2d 85
Richard Appel, Asst. U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (Otto G.
Obermaier, U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City, of counsel), for
appellant.
Richard J. Calle, New York City, for defendant-appellee.
Before MESKILL, PIERCE and MAHONEY, Circuit Judges.
MESKILL, Circuit Judge:
The government appeals from an order of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Haight, J., releasing defendant Juan Manuel
Rodriguez (Rodriguez) on bail. We vacate the order because we believe that
the government has met its burden of showing that Rodriguez represents a
danger to the community.
Rodriguez and codefendant Orlando Pitre (Pitre) were indicted for conspiring
to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. The indictment listed four overt acts
underlying the conspiracy: (1) Pitre sold heroin to an undercover agent and a
confidential informant, (2) Pitre offered to supply an undercover agent with
guns and a hitman, (3) Pitre introduced Rodriguez to the undercover agent as
his hitman, and (4) Pitre and Rodriguez agreed to perform a murder in
exchange for one kilogram of cocaine.
4
Subject
to rebuttal by the person, it shall be presumed that no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as
required and the safety of the community if the judicial officer finds that there is
probable cause to believe that the person committed an offense for which a
maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed in the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.).
5
BACKGROUND
7
10
11
In this case, even using the most deferential standard of review, we believe that
the government has met its burden of proving dangerousness by clear and
convincing evidence.
12
The district court erred as a matter of law in rejecting the information provided
by the confidential informant regarding the other shooting allegedly committed
by Rodriguez. The court discounted the information because "it is not the sort
of conduct which arises out of the charge in the indictment by which I mean
there is nothing to indicate that Mr. Rodriguez has been a drug merchant or
someone who is engaged in violent acts in connection with drug trafficking."
The district court thereby imposed a requirement that the violent conduct
witnessed by the informant be connected to the activity charged in the
indictment. The district court stated that "[t]he question of danger to the
community arises primarily out of what the production was in which the
defendants engaged in connection with the narcotics transaction." We have
never required such a nexus, nor do we impose such a requirement today. The
issue is whether a defendant poses a danger to the community. Shooting a man
in the kneecap over a small debt is probative of dangerousness, regardless of
whether the incident was related to drug trafficking. Cf. United States v.
Quartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 917 (11th Cir.1990) ("[W]e reject [defendant's]
suggestion that his acts of 'domestic' violence do not support a finding of
dangerousness to the community. A willingness to strike loved ones offers
probative evidence of a tendency to violence and dangerousness towards
others.").
13
14
15
The district judge, in considering the bail package, failed to consider properly
"the nature and seriousness of the danger to ... the community that would be
posed by the person's release," as mandated by the statute. 18 U.S.C. 3142(g)
(4). The bail package offered by Rodriguez, although it may reasonably assure
the appearance of Rodriguez at trial, will not reasonably assure the safety of the
We conclude that the district court erred in determining that the bail package
offered by Rodriguez reasonably would assure the safety of the community.
The existence of four cosigners and $10,000 cash may assure the appearance of
Rodriguez at trial but will not secure the safety of the community. Therefore,
we vacate the order of the district court and remand with instructions to detain
Rodriguez. The mandate shall issue forthwith.