Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UNITED STATES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 07-20124-02-CM
)
GUY MADISON NEIGHBORS, )
)
Defendant. )
Defendant Guy Madison Neighbors, by and through his counsel, hereby respectfully
moves the Court to reinstate the pretrial release order previously entered in this case, revoked by
Detention Order, Document # 175, on May 20, 2009. Mr. Neighbors seeks release as the
findings against him do not support detention under 18 U.S.C. ' 3142. In support of this motion
Mr. Neighbors was ordered detained after a hearing on the Government=s Renewed
Motion to Revoke Defendant=s Bond, Document # 165. Magistrate Judge O=Hara set out the
reasons for detaining Mr. Neighbors in the Detention Order, Document # 175. The Court stated
that the most important reason for detention was that no condition or combination of conditions
would reasonably assure the appearance of Mr. Neighbors. However, the Court immediately
stated that it did not believe that Mr. Neighbors Aposes a flight risk in terms of physically fleeing
the jurisdiction or failing to show up for scheduled court appearances.@ Previously the Court had
noted that Mr. Neighbors= Aaffect and behavior during court proceedings has been polite,
1
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 2 of 5
attentive, oriented to his surroundings, and generally consistent with a man of at least average
intelligence.@
There is obviously no reason to detain Mr. Neighbors on the question of whether he will
appear in court as directed. The Court found that he would not flee the jurisdiction nor does the
Court believe he will fail to appear as ordered. Indeed, Mr. Neighbors has never failed to appear
as ordered.
The Court listed as an alternative reason for detaining Mr. Neighbors was that the Court
could find no condition or combination of conditions which would Areasonably assure the safety
of any other person or the community.@ The court added: ASpecifically, the court finds that
defendant poses a serious risk of ongoing criminal defamation of Government counsel and
witnesses.@
The Court followed the language of 18 U.S.C. ' 3142 (g) in its Findings of Fact. The
Court noted, under the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, that Mr. Neighbors is
charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. None of these
charges are violent or create a risk to the safety of any person or the community. The Court
noted its belief that the Government appears to have a fairly strong case against Mr. Neighbors.
The Court reviewed the history and characteristics of Mr. Neighbors. The Court
indicated a suspicion that Mr. Neighbors suffers from a mental condition which might affect his
ability to comply with court orders. The Court concluded, however, there was insufficient
evidence to support that suspicion. The Court referred to the pretrial services report and its
indication that Mr. Neighbors has a history of drug abuse. However, the pretrial services report
2
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 3 of 5
indicates that Mr. Neighbors had only four positive drug tests. Those tests were positive for
marijuana and occurred on December 27, 2006, June 25, 2007, July 5, 2007, and July 18, 2007.
All drug tests since then have been negative. Thus, there has been no indication of drug use for
the past two years. This surely shows that Mr. Neighbors has been able and willing to comply
with court orders to refrain from the use of drugs. It is certainly evidence that he has no drug
addiction or abuse issues which have not been successfully dealt with. It is proof that the court
can impose conditions or a combination of conditions of pretrial release that would reasonably
The Court further cited the pretrial services report as indicating that Mr. Neighbors has a
significant criminal record. However, that pretrial services report shows only two prior criminal
cases, both from Arizona. The first was in 1978 and involved a charge of possession of
marijuana, no driver=s license, no registration, and failure to appear. The second was a
possession of marijuana. These cases are nonviolent and thirty years old. Mr. Neighbors has
kept a clean record for the past three decades. This factor does not weigh in favor of detention.
Lastly, the Court refers to his warnings from Court and counsel about the importance of
following the Court=s orders. This does not justify a detention order.
The Court failed to note that under 18 U.S.C. ' 3142 (g)(3)(B), another factor to be
considered is whether a defendant was on probation, parole or other release at the time of the
current offense. Mr. Neighbors was not under any of these forms of supervision at the times he
is alleged to have committed the offenses in this case. This factor weighs in favor of pretrial
3
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 4 of 5
The Court found that under 18 U.S.C. ' 3142 (g)(4) Mr. Neighbors poses a serious risk of
danger to the community by Acontinued criminal defamation.@ The statute involved reads as
follows A18 U.S.C. ' 3142 (g) (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the
community that would be posed by the person=s release.@ The court is required by this factor to
assess how likely a particular danger is to the community. This is the Aseriousness@ of the risk.
If a risk of danger to the community is very remote or unlikely then it is not Aserious.@ In the
alleged violation of pretrial release conditions Mr. Neighbors is said to have sent one email to
twenty-seven persons or entities. This is one email sent since the condition was placed on him in
August 2008. This cannot be said to be a frequent or even quickly occurring event. The risk of
it happening again cannot be said to be high or, in the language of the statute, Aserious.@
More important is the language of the statute requiring the Court to consider the Anature@
of the danger to any person or to the community. The Court has declared that danger to be
Acriminal defamation of Government counsel and witnesses.@ Surely this is not the kind or
Anature@ of danger which pretrial detention is designed to prevent. Physical harm or death would
be appropriate dangers to justify pretrial detention. The sale of narcotics, with its potential for
death and likelihood of causing personal suffering, could be an appropriate danger to justify
pretrial detention. Damage to property, arson or even theft, might even be a danger sufficient to
justify pretrial detention. Criminal defamation is certainly not a Adanger@ sufficient to justify
pretrial detention. If Congress had intended to make any criminal violation or potentially civilly
actionable event, legislators could have easily written the statute in such a way. They chose not
to. Instead they decided that pretrial detention should only be considered appropriate where
there was a high, Aserious@ likelihood, Arisk@ of Adanger@ to a person or the community. The
4
Case 2:07-cr-20124-CM-JPO Document 176 Filed 06/01/2009 Page 5 of 5
There are only two reasons under 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(c) that Mr. Neighbors should be
detained; either he is not reasonably likely to appear in court as required, or he will endanger the
safety of any other person or the community despite the issuance of conditions or a combination
of conditions. The Court itself found that Mr. Neighbors would appear as required. This is not a
reason to justify his detention. The Court has placed conditions on his pretrial release. These
conditions have and will continue to insure that the safety of individuals and the community.
Based on the above and foregoing arguments and authorities, Mr. Neighbors respectfully
requests that this Court grant his motion to reinstate the pretrial release order previously entered
in this case.
Respectfully Submitted,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Cheryl A. Pilate, do hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above and
forgoing motion was served on all parties of record pursuant to the ECF system on this 1st day of
June, 2009.
/ s/ Cheryl A. Pilate