Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 1 of 17 - Page ID#: 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) No. 6:21-CR-32-CHB-HAI
Plaintiff, )
) FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF
v. ) REASONS FOR RELEASE AS TO
) PATRICK BAKER
PATRICK BAKER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

*** *** *** ***

Defendant, Patrick Baker, faces an indictment charging murder during and in relation to a

conspiracy to distribute oxycodone pills. D.E. 1. Following a full detention hearing pursuant to

the Bail Reform Act (“BRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3150, and submission of written argument, the

Court finds that strict conditions will sufficiently mitigate the evident danger risks. The

conditions include home incarceration with active GPS monitoring, removal of the firearm in the

home, that any controlled substance in the home be secured against access by Baker, and other

standard conditions of release in drug cases on this docket. Although the government’s proof

puts Baker at the center of a killing that establishes serious danger risks, two components of the

overall proof compel the result that the government did not carry its burden. First, in a related

state case, Baker was on home incarceration beginning in May 2014 for more than three years

without any noted bond violation. Second, he was released in December 2019 after partially

serving a nineteen-year prison term and there is no evidence whatsoever of any misconduct since

his release. Thus, the BRA requires release under § 3142(c). The Court sets forth its reasoning

and findings herein pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 9(a) and the BRA.
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 2 of 17 - Page ID#: 48

I. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

At Defendant’s arraignment on June 1, 2021, the United States properly moved for

detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A)&(B). Baker was interviewed by USPO Brittney Crisp

the next day. A Pretrial Services Report (“PSR”) issued on June 3 and an Addendum to the PSR

issued the morning of June 4. The Court conducted a hearing on the afternoon of June 4, 2021.

The Court afforded Baker and the United States all procedural rights provided by the BRA.

The BRA segregates certain offenses for particular analysis regarding pretrial detention

or release. The BRA states:

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-- . . . (B) an offense under
section 924(c)[.]

18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). The Indictment charges Baker with murder under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1).

That subsection applies to death caused by use of a firearm “during and in the course of a

violation of subsection [924](c).” A natural reading will require the government to prove an

offense under 924(c) to obtain a conviction. The Court easily finds that the indictment triggers

the presumption quoted above, and, by definition, establishes probable cause. The defense

argued otherwise, but offered no plausible contrary construction of the statutory language. Even

the cases cited by the defense support the Court’s construction. United States v. Ricketts, 317

F.3d 540, 544 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[What is now § 924(j)] states ‘A person who, in the course of a

violation of [§ 924(c) ], causes the death of a person through the use of a firearm, shall-(1) if the

killing is a murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or by imprisonment for any

term of years or for life. . . .’”); United States v. Nguyen, 155 F.3d 1219, 1226 (10th Cir. 1998)

(“To be convicted of . . . murder in violation of section 924(j)(1), Defendant must have first

2
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 3 of 17 - Page ID#: 49

violated section 924(c)(1)[.]”); United States v. Moonda, No. 4:06-MJ-6049, 2006 WL 2225822,

at *7 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 2, 2006) (“In its brief in favor of detention, the government argues that

because the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) tracks the language of § 924(c), the ‘rebuttable

presumption’ contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3142 applies. The Court agrees.”).

As a result, Defendant faced a production burden at the detention hearing. United States

v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010) (“[W]hen the government presents an indictment

including charges listed in section 3142(e)(3), it has fulfilled its burden to establish the

presumption in favor of detention.”). Baker’s burden is not heavy and requires the production of

some credible evidence that he generally does not pose a danger to the community or a risk of

flight. Id; see also United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986) (imposing

burden of production on defendant to produce “some evidence that he will not flee or endanger

the community if released” in face of presumption); United States v. Gibson, 481 F. Supp. 2d

419, 422 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (describing the “quantum of evidence” required to rebut presumption

as “not high” and involving presentation of “some evidence”); United States v. Hernandez, No.

1:02-CR-06, 2002 WL 1377911, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 27, 2002) (unpublished) (crafting

production burden as “the burden of producing probative, credible evidence to rebut the

presumption and support [the defendant’s] contention that he will appear . . . and he does not

pose a danger to community safety”). The Government retains the burden of persuasion. Stone,

608 F.3d at 945. The failure to rebut, however, warrants detention by the very terms of the BRA.

The ultimate question is whether conditions of release will reasonably assure the

appearance of Baker as required and the safety of any other person and the community. 18

U.S.C. § 3142(f). Danger and flight are separate concepts and must be analyzed as such. Courts

readily note that factors relevant to reduced flight risk may not necessarily reduce potential

3
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 4 of 17 - Page ID#: 50

danger. See, e.g., United States v. Holland, No. IP 06-172-CR-01 T/F, 2006 WL 3755926, at *4

(S.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2006) (“The presence of community ties and related ties have been found to

have no correlation with the issue of safety of the community.”) (citing United States v. Delker,

757 F.2d 1390, 1396 (3d. Cir. 1985)); United States v. Mercedes, 254 F.3d 433, 436-37 (2d Cir.

2001) (“We have expressly held in several cases that a bail package that might ‘reasonably

assure the appearance of the defendant at trial, will not reasonably assure the safety of the

community.’” (citation omitted)).

Detention based upon safety risks must be supported by clear and convincing evidence.

18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). A non-appearance detention decision must rest on facts supported by a

preponderance of the evidence. See United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d 789, 793 (1st Cir.

1991).

II. EVIDENCE PRESENTED

The evidence was extensive and, at times, detailed. It cannot be fully repeated here. But,

the Court has fully reviewed the evidentiary record, including the indictment, the Pretrial

Services Report (“PSR”) and Addendum thereto, testimony and documentary evidence, and

written arguments submitted.

The defense called two witnesses. First, U.S. Probation Officer Brittney Crisp affirmed

the contents of the PSR and Addendum.1 Verified by Baker’s brother, the PSR indicates he has

resided in Frankfort, Kentucky, for approximately one year with his girlfriend. Baker has

resided in Kentucky throughout his life (save one year in Florida) and has daily contact with his

1
The PSR and Addendum are not public record. They are to be used only for the purposes of a bail determination
and “shall otherwise be confidential.” 18 U.S.C. § 3153(c)(1).

4
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 5 of 17 - Page ID#: 51

parents and regular contact with a brother, all of whom live in southern Kentucky.2 He does not

have a passport and has only traveled outside the country once, in 2008 to snow ski in Canada.

He is currently unemployed and provides care for his infant daughter. Lacking in detail (but not

disputed), the PSR indicates he essentially has no assets or liabilities. He enjoys good physical

health. He recently made one visit to a mental health professional in Frankfort, Kentucky, due to

“things he had been through in his life and preparing to be a father.” He was prescribed an

unidentified medication (identified by his girlfriend as Zoloft), took it once, and discontinued

use. He acknowledges yearly use of alcohol and rare use of cannabinoids, as well as suffering an

addiction to prescription opiates beginning at age 30 with use ending seven years ago. He also

used an unidentified drug one time that he believes was methamphetamine. His criminal history

includes many minor traffic matters. The PSR recommends detention.

Baker was charged with murder in 2014 in Knox Circuit Court. In December 2017, a

jury found him guilty of of reckless homicide, first-degree robbery, impersonating a peace

officer, and tampering with physical evidence. He was sentenced to nineteen years’

imprisonment. He appealed, but his judgment was affirmed. Baker v. Commonwealth, 2018 WL

6721295 (Ky. App. Dec. 21, 2018), review denied, No. 2019-SC-59-D (Ky. Oct. 24, 2019).

Prepared at the Court’s request, the Addendum provides the following detail concerning this

case:

Pertaining to Count 1, the defendant was originally charged with Murder,

which was amended to the guilty, lesser charge.

The defendant was arrested on May 9, 2014, in Knox District Court Case
Number 14-F-00193 and charged with Count 1, Murder. The defendant was
released on a $400,000.00 cash and property bond posted by [his parents] John
and Jacqueline Baker and the defendant was placed on home incarceration. No
violations of bond were noted in the court record. An indictment was returned by
2
The bond report mistakenly identifies Chris Wood and Jared Wood as Baker’s brothers.
5
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 6 of 17 - Page ID#: 52

the grand jury on July 25, 2014 and a $500,000.00 cash bond was set in this case.
On November 12, 2014, the $500,000.00 cash bond was posted, and the defendant
was released on bond. No violations of bond were noted in the court record.

Per the court record, on December 6, 2019, an executive order was entered
providing Baker with a pardon for charges associated with this conviction.

The defense’s second witness was Baker’s girlfriend, Natasha Collins. She is currently

employed with the Kentucky natural resources cabinet as an environmental compliance officer.

She began a romantic relationship with Baker while they were both students at Eastern Kentucky

University. His ambitions to become a professional golfer took them to Florida for less than a

year, but, as they grew apart, she returned to Frankfort and he to Knox County. They remained

friends, and eventually rekindled their romantic relationship. She has a daughter from a prior

marriage that stays with her about half the time. She and Baker have an infant daughter. They

all live together in Frankfort. She purchased the home in June 2020, and they are renovating as

“it needs a lot of work.” Baker does not work outside the home, but cares for the children and

helps Collins’s parents as well. She and Baker were not together at the time of the state case,

and the father of the older child initially was concerned when they got together given the

circumstances of that case. Per Collins, the father has since said the daughter could not have a

better stepfather than Baker. Collins generally described Baker as likable, mentally stable,

physically healthy, and churchgoing. She has never seen him use or abuse drugs since they got

back together, and he only occasionally uses alcohol. She acknowledged she has a firearm in the

home and agreed it could be removed.

Collins was offered as a potential third-party custodian, so she was questioned by the

Court as well. The Court reviewed all typical requirements of such an obligation and penalties

for a violation. Despite her close relationship with Baker and adverse consequences that could

6
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 7 of 17 - Page ID#: 53

result, she swore she could report a violation or absence from her custody. She acknowledged

having an alcohol intoxication conviction, a disorderly conduct conviction, and a fourth-degree

assault charge filed, later dismissed, stemming from a divorce with some violent components.

The Court asked about her current prescribed medications. She listed two prescriptions that the

Court knows are for controlled substances. Yet she only believes one is controlled and, as to the

other (Lorazepam), has “no idea” whether it is controlled or not. She clarified that she currently

works remotely from her home, with few regular activities that take her outside the home.

The Court found the presumption was fully rebutted for the reasons stated on the record,

primarily the evidence of more than three years on strict release conditions with no reported

violation.

The government called ATF Special Agent Todd Tremaine. He described a joint federal

and state investigation into the shooting death of Donald Mills on May 9, 2014. His testimony

was lengthy and detailed, with reference to several exhibits. Although reviewed in its entirety,

what follows are important highlights.

• Evidence from the scene of the shooting, including photographs presented by the
government, depict forced entry into Mills’s residence, shell casings and blood found
inside and outside the residence, a pair of plastic handcuffs, and a camouflage ghillie suit
found a half mile down the road. Shell casings just outside the home were identified as
40-caliber. Five casings in the master bedroom were 9-millimeter.

• Mills’s wife, Charlene, was interviewed close in time and later provided sworn
testimony. She reported that at 5:01 on May 9, the residence door was kicked in and two
males entered and demanded a show of hands. The men identified themselves as DEA or
Operation Unite. One of them took her and three children into one side of the residence.
The second man, the skinnier man, was with Donald elsewhere. Charlene demanded to
see their warrant. She then heard the skinnier man ask repeatedly where the money and
dope were. A commotion and gunshots followed. She called her mother-in-law Phyllis
and put the phone down. The two men left in a maroon Ford F150 pickup. Charlene
fired several rounds of a 40-caliber firearm at the truck as it left. She recalled seeing
Elijah Messer in the same vehicle two days prior. She described her husband as a known
large-scale oxycodone dealer.

7
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 8 of 17 - Page ID#: 54

• Phyllis was interviewed as well. She reported that, after she received the call from
Charlene, she went to the residence and saw two males leaving. One was heavier set and
the skinnier one claimed be a U.S. Marshal. She said the skinnier one had brown eyes,
but Tremaine confirmed Baker’s eyes are blue. Inside the residence she found her son
was shot and he said he could not breathe.

• Mills died and the cause was determined to be to chest gunshot wounds.

• The investigation found that two pairs of toy handcuffs were sold at the Dollar General
store in London on May 8. The receipt and surveillance photos concerning that purchase
were obtained. Special Agent Tremaine identified Baker and Christopher Wagner in the
photos.

• Elijah Messer and Adam Messer were located and interviewed. They initially denied
knowledge of the incident, but were re-interviewed. Adam Messer stated he knew
Donald Mills to be an oxycodone supplier and, on the night of May 8, two people he had
never seen before showed up. Adam Messer said he later came to know these men as
Patrick Baker and Christopher Wagner. Baker showed Adam Messer a Google Earth
picture of a residence on an iPad. Baker also had pictures on his cell phone of Baker and
Elijah Messer. According to Adam Messer, there was talk of going to rob somebody.

• Elijah Messer was interviewed, including as recently as April 30 of this year. Elijah
Messer said that on May 7 Stephanie Smith (now deceased) and Baker arrived at his
residence in a maroon Ford F150 looking for 50-60 pills. Elijah told them that Donald
Mills up the road was an oxy seller. The three of them went together to Mills’s residence
in Baker’s vehicle. Mills told Elijah Messer he only had 50 pills but would have more
later. Elijah purchased 50, and, at the vehicle, Mills said they should come back because
he would have more the next day. Smith suggested they immediately rob Mills, but
Elijah said no to that demand. Tremaine identified Mills and Elijah from a picture taken
from inside a vehicle by an apple iPhone 5S. Location data later put the phone on Donald
Mills’s property. The 50 pills were partially divided up, including some provided to
Elijah for arranging the deal. The three left Mills’s residence and later dropped Elijah
Messer off. Elijah stated that at approximately 2:00 a.m. on May 9, at Adam’s residence,
Baker and Wagner arrived and said they were looking for pills. Elijah said Baker looked
“dope sick” and provided some meth to Baker, who split it with Wagner. Baker wanted
to discuss a robbery. He showed Elijah a Google Earth image (later recovered from
Baker’s iPad), and wanted to know from Elijah how to conduct the robbery. The plan
was to pose as police officers with fake handcuffs. Elijah saw Baker and Wagner put
camouflage on the truck, which Tremaine described as matching the ghillie suit later
found. Elijah said that, at Baker’s request, Elijah planned to meet them after the robbery
at the end of the holler and exchange some of the pills to Baker in exchange for more
meth. Elijah waited there and saw Baker drive by very fast. They met at another
location. Baker told Elijah that Mills pulled a gun and Baker had to shoot him and they
did not get anything from the robbery.
8
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 9 of 17 - Page ID#: 55

• Christopher Wagner was interviewed and said he knew Baker for 15-20 years and they
used pills daily leading up to the events of May 9. He said Baker also sometimes
distributed user quantities to friends. On May 8, Wagner got off work early and his boss
dropped him off at Baker’s residence. Baker then told him about an easy robbery of a
man he had just met that might have $100-200,000 and up to 1,500 pills and that they
could pretend to be cops. They purchased handcuffs at the Dollar General in London,
and they went to Knox County to a residence unknown to him. Prior to that they got
firearms and masks from Baker’s residence. Prior to agreeing to the robbery, Wagner
told Baker he did not have a firearm, and Baker responded that Wagner could use Baker’s
wife’s gun. Wagner said Baker also had another firearm that was brown in color. After
getting and using meth, they prepped the robbery and agreed Wagner would get one-
quarter of the proceeds. They proceeded to Mills’s residence, Baker kicked in the door
and went left and Wagner went right. Tremaine said Wagner’s account was almost
identical to Charlene’s description. When they fled the residence in the truck, Baker told
Wagner they only obtained a few pills. They later divided and used the pills. After
fleeing the robbery, they were looking for a way out of Knox County and went to a
wilderness trail in Bell County known as the “Bridge to Nowhere.” They burned clothes,
disassembled the firearm Baker had used, and buried portions of it. They threw the
handcuffs and vests over a steep ridgeline. Wagner returned the firearm he had used to
Baker to return to Baker’s wife.

• Wagner later took law enforcement to the spot where the firearm was buried. A photo
introduced by the government depicted components of a firearm, including one with a
serial number of SN 482. The items were found “precisely” where Wagner said they
would be located. The barrel was never recovered.

• Law enforcement’s analysis of Baker’s cell phone location data confirmed he was in the
area of the purchase of the handcuffs at the Dollar General at the time of the purchase, at
various locations in Knox County, and then later in Bell County after 7:00 a.m.
approximately three miles from the entrance to the Bridge to Nowhere location.

• Warrant-backed searches at Baker’s residence and garage resulted in finding a maroon

Ford F150 and a firearm case/box with serial number SN 482. Later investigation
revealed the original purchaser of the firearm was Edward Huckleby, who was Baker’s
former father-in-law. Forensic analysis of the shell casings in Mills’s bedroom where he
was shot were linked to the firearm’s slide assembly that was recovered, but no barrel
comparison could be made. An iPad found at Baker’s residence contained a Google
Earth image of Mills’s residence.

• Baker’s ex-wife confirmed the return of her firearm that Wagner described to law
enforcement. She told law enforcement she discovered that her firearm, normally kept by
the bed, was out. She called Baker to ask why it was out. He acknowledge he had taken
it and said he put a scope on it. In sworn testimony provided after their divorce, she
stated Baker confessed to the plot to rob Mills with Wagner and described the events in
9
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 10 of 17 - Page ID#: 56

detail in a way that matched Charlene and Wagner’s description. She said Baker told her
he had to shoot Mills out of self-defense.

• Baker’s girlfriend at the time of the May 9 events said that, immediately following the
events, Baker told her he wanted to go on vacation to Charleston, S.C.

Cross-examination of Special Agent Tremaine was extensive. Among other things, he

acknowledged a jury verdict of not guilty on the murder charge, that Phyllis could not identify

the two men because they were masked, that a child at the scene said someone had a tattoo but

Tremaine thinks Baker is not tattooed, that Baker was “excluded” from DNA found on the

handcuffs, that Elijah initially lied to law enforcement, that no DNA or fingerprint evidence

places Baker in Mills’s residence, that Wagner pled guilty, that, aside from two interviews he has

conducted, there is no new evidence since the state jury trial, and that Baker’s ex-wife did not

make any statements in 2014 but only described the confession in 2017.

As is common at this stage, the defense did not offer its own proof to contradict

Tremaine’s testimony.

Melinda Mills, sister of Donald Mills, spoke on behalf of the Mills family. Her statement

was unsworn (she was not presented as a witness) and she was understandably emotional. She

said that the request of the Mills family was for Baker to “be kept locked up.” She said, “We

fear for our safety.” She addressed some comments to Baker. And she told the Court the family

was afraid of what else Baker may be capable of doing since he was willing to impersonate a

federal officer and invade a home.

III. FINDINGS

Pursuant to section 3142(e)(1), the ultimate issue before the Court is whether any

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person and

the community. The Court found the presumption in favor of detention was fully rebutted. Even

10
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 11 of 17 - Page ID#: 57

when rebutted, however, the presumption does not disappear, but becomes “an evidentiary

finding militating against release, to be weighed along with other evidence relevant to factors

listed in § 3142(g).” United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). The

presumption retains evidentiary weight because of “Congress’s substantive judgment that

particular classes of offenders should ordinarily be detained prior to trial.” United States v.

Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added).

The Court’s evaluation of the section 3142(g) factors is mixed, but ultimately the Court

finds, on this record, the government has not carried its burden. Although the defense indicated

a willingness for strict conditions to be imposed, the defense’s proposed conditions were a bit

unprecise and amorphous. After the proof was closed, to guide the parties’ arguments, the Court

indicated Collins did not present as a suitable third-party custodian. Although well-meaning and

industrious, she could not answer whether one of her own prescriptions is a controlled substance

or not. She is plainly unqualified to monitor Baker for compliance with controlled substance-

based conditions. The defense suggested other custodians could be found and evaluated, but by

then the proof had closed. The defense also suggested property from Baker’s parents could be

posted, but that was not included in their evidentiary presentation either.3 Blurring the line

between evidence (either testimonial or allowed proffer) and argument as to the application of

the 3142(g) factors based on the evidence presented is particularly unhelpful to the Court in a

case like this. It could lead to a never-ending cycle of revised proposed bond packages. The

Court, as it must, has limited its analysis to the evidence presented instead of speculation about

what other evidence the defense may obtain.

3
Should the government seek to modify the conditions imposed by the Court pursuant to this offer by the defense, it
may move for a hearing on the matter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(4).

11
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 12 of 17 - Page ID#: 58

A. (1) Nature and circumstances of offenses charged/

(2) Weight of the evidence against Defendant4/
(4) Nature and seriousness of danger posed by release.

The Indictment charges an offense that involves oxycodone and a firearm which are

specifically pro-detention under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1).

The legislative history of the BRA specifically discusses the nature of the presumption in

the context of accused drug traffickers. The Senate Report characterizes the presumption, when

applicable, as imposing a “strong probability” that “no form of conditional release will be

adequate.” S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 19 (1983), reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3202.

Further, charged offenses like those in this case, in the words of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

are serious and dangerous federal offenses. The drug offenses

involve either trafficking in opiates or narcotic drugs . . . . It is
well known that drug trafficking is carried on to an unusual degree
by persons engaged in continuing patterns of criminal activity.
Persons charged with major drug felonies are often in the business
of importing or distributing dangerous drugs, and thus, because of
the nature of the criminal activity with which they are charged,
they pose a significant risk of pretrial recidivism. . . .

Id. at 20, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3203 (emphasis added). Additionally, the “danger”

contemplated by the Act extends beyond physical harm to encompass the societal and economic

perils posed by drug trafficking. See id. at 12-13, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 3195-96 (stating that

“safety” is to mean more than “physical violence” and extends to “nonphysical harms;” further,

“the risk that a defendant will continue to engage in drug trafficking constitutes a danger to the

‘safety of any other person or the community’”) As described above, although rebutted, this

presumption retains evidentiary weight.

4
Of course, the BRA expressly provides that “Nothing in this section shall be construed as modifying or limiting the
presumption of innocence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j).
12
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 13 of 17 - Page ID#: 59

The government’s proof persuasively illustrates the wisdom of the presumption and the

broad concept of societal danger at stake. For purposes only of the release-detention analysis,

Tremaine’s testimony shows the charge is well-supported. Drug trafficking and abuse permeate

the events leading up to the shooting of Mills. The general danger presented by such trafficking

and abuse escalated into a planned armed, robbery early in the morning. Three minors were

present in Mills’s home. Mills was shot and killed as the robbery went bad. Multiple witness

statements corroborate each other at a detailed level and establish Baker as the shooter. Forensic

analysis of the firearm components and its serial number, matched with the case/box found at his

residence, firmly link Baker to the shooting. Although not determinative, a jury agreed, and the

Court of Appeals of Kentucky described the proof of Baker’s guilt as “overwhelming.” Baker v.

Commonwealth, 2018 WL 6721295 at *3. As the defense repeatedly emphasized, that same

evidence was summarized by Tremaine.

The elements of the current federal charge obviously differ from the elements of the state

crimes of conviction, for which Baker was eventually pardoned. The Court’s job here is not to

assess guilt of any those state crimes. But the proof must be evaluated as to dangerousness, and

the circumstances of the crime establish a serious risk of violent, drug-related criminal conduct.

The defense relied heavily on the Sixth Circuit’s pronouncement in Stone that the section

3142(g)(2) “factor goes to the weight of the evidence of dangerousness, not the weight of the

evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” 608 F.3d at 948. The defense even “absolutely disagreed”

that evidence can go to both dangerousness and the charged offense. A preposterous argument.

The Sixth Circuit defined the contours of the dangerousness factor. Obviously, evidence relating

to that factor can have many purposes and uses. And danger has an expansive meaning under the

13
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 14 of 17 - Page ID#: 60

BRA. Tremaine’s testimony supports the charged offense and adds many elements of

dangerousness to consider under section 3142(g)(2).

If released, the risk to be managed is the return to dangerous drug use, involvement in

trafficking, and related violent, potentially deadly, conduct. It is a grave risk to manage.

B. (3) History and characteristics of Defendant.

The content of the PSR is largely pro-release. Longtime residence, family ties, a lack of

means to support long-term flight, and stable physical health indicate some stability. Baker’s

one-time, recent mental health appointment was not a point of emphasis of either side’s

presentation. If it was as described by Baker, the appointment represents planning for the strain

of the birth of his first child. The intended residence strikes the Court as stable as well.

The government’s proof contradicts Baker’s self-reported substance abuse history. He

admits long-term abuse of prescription opiates from age 30 to 36, ending approximately seven

years ago. He described only one-time use of what he assumed was meth. But the government’s

proof indicates the robbery of Mills was designed for Baker to obtain pills to use to get meth.

There is, however, no evidence of any drug use since the events of May 9, 2014. In the Court’s

view, this means the key to preventing a return to the drug life is preventing exposure to

controlled substances and the culture they foster.

Baker’s criminal history lacks the long-term conduct so often seen by the Court

associated with drug abuse. He has no significant convictions in his criminal history prior to the

2017 convictions related to the shooting of Mills. The pardon he received does not mitigate the

danger risks established by Tremaine’s detailed testimony. Baker’s bond compliance in that case

strongly favors release. He was on home incarceration, facing a murder charge, for three and a

half years without any reported violation. In the Court’s view, a defendant’s record of

14
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 15 of 17 - Page ID#: 61

compliance or non-compliance with court-ordered conditions of release is the most probative

evidence of predicted future compliance. Baker’s record under strict conditions for several years

favors expecting more of the same.

Finally, and importantly, the government’s proof includes no misconduct or misbehavior

since the state prosecution was initiated in May 2014. Baker has been out of custody since

December 2019, and there is no proof of any pro-detention conduct since then. Without such

proof, the Court assesses the risk of dangerous pre-trial recidivism to be reasonably manageable.

IV. CONCLUSION

Any detention decision ultimately turns on the efficacy of potential conditions which, in

turn, depends upon predicted compliance by a defendant. See United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d

1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting with respect to strict conditions that “[i]n order to be

effective, they depend on [defendant’s] good faith compliance”). The key risk to manage is a

return to dangerous drug use and deadly violence that may result. The total lack of evidence of

any recent misbehavior following a three-and-a-half-year period on home incarceration with no

reported violations favors expecting compliance with strict conditions so as to sufficiently

mitigate that risk.

Thus, the Court does not find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the conditions set

forth below would not reasonably assure against danger. Nor does the Court find, by a

preponderance, that the conditions below would not reasonably assure against flight. Therefore,

Defendant will be released following a status conference and, subsequent to that conference,

confirmation from the USPO that any firearm in the residence has been removed and all

controlled substances are reasonably secured against access by Baker, subject to the

following conditions:

15
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 16 of 17 - Page ID#: 62

1. Defendant shall report to the USPO as directed;

2. Defendant’s travel shall be restricted to the Eastern District of Kentucky and he shall not
obtain a passport or other international travel document;

3. Defendant shall be subject to the Court’s standard no-contact condition;

4. Defendant shall refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other dangerous
weapons. Prior to release, the USPO must confirm all firearms have been removed from
the home;

5. Defendant shall refrain from any alcohol use;

6. Defendant shall not use or unlawfully possess a narcotic drug or other controlled
substance unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner;

7. Prior to release, the USPO must confirm that all controlled substances in the residence
are secured against access by Baker;

8. Defendant shall submit to and fully cooperate in USPO testing for prohibited substance
use;

9. Defendant will be placed on home incarceration, meaning he will be restricted to 24-

hour-a-day lock-down at his residence except for medical necessities and court
appearances or other activities specifically approved by the Court;

10. Defendant must comply with active GPS monitoring to be activated at the time of his
release and shall pay all or part of the cost of monitoring as determined by the USPO;

11. Defendant shall participate in mental health treatment at the direction and discretion of
the USPO.

12. Defendant shall immediately report to the USPO any interaction with law enforcement;

13. Defendant shall notify the USPO of any controlled substance prescription and must
follow such prescription as directed by a licensed medical practitioner;

14. Defendant shall make full disclosure of the pending Indictment to any physician
prescribing a controlled substance;

15. Defendant shall not violate any state, federal, or local law; and

16. Defendant shall appear in person at all court hearings regarding Defendant in this case, as
set by any scheduling orders of the Court.

16
Case: 6:21-cr-00032-CHB-HAI Doc #: 20 Filed: 06/08/21 Page: 17 of 17 - Page ID#: 63

Of course, the parties may appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(a).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the in-person status conference described herein is

SCHEDULED for Wednesday, June 9, 2021, at 1:45 p.m., in London, Kentucky.

This the 8th day of June, 2021.

17