UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ROBERT F. ARNOLD,

)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:16-00117
Judge Sharp

ORDER

On the same day he pled guilty to three felony counts and the Court accepted his plea,
Defendant filed a Motion for Release From Detention (Docket No. 161). In the Motion, Defendant
argues that, in denying his prior request for release pending trial, the Court gave substantial (though
not exclusive) weight to Defendants office as Sheriff of Rutherford County and his concomitant
ability to use his office for harassment and intimidation. (Id. at 1, citation omitted). Defendant
submits this is no longer of concern because he has since been suspended from office. Additionally,
Defendant argues that, with the entry of his plea, there will no longer be any cause for concern that
he will attempt to obstruct justice. (Id.).
While it is true that one of the Courts concerns in denying Defendants earlier request for
release was with his ability to misuse the powers of his office, the Court also found that his
willingness to try to mislead the Probation Office, and his willingness to deceive and obfuscate from
the witness stand, among other things, gives this Court no basis from which to conclude that he can
be trusted to abide by any conditions of release. (Docket No. 106 at 14).

The Court was also

concerned about the altercation Defendant had with his wife which led to the revocation of his pretrial
release, with the Court expressing the view that it would not be enough . . . to simply prohibit
Defendant from seeing his wife, even assuming Defendant would follow any such order. (Id.)
Those conclusions remain, even though Defendant proposes that he be released to the custody

Case 3:16-cr-00117 Document 171 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1094

of his mother in Brentwood, Tennessee rather than being allowed to return to his marital home in
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Even adding electronic monitoring as a condition does not eliminate the
Courts concern because such monitoring is hardly foolproof.
Additionally, and as the Government points out in is response in opposition,
there have been numerous indications throughout the proceedings that Arnold poses
a risk of self-harm. Several witnesses have stated that, when Arnolds connections to
JailCigs first came to light, he told them that he had considered eating a bullet. On
one of the jail calls, he directed his wife to tell my kids I loved them very much,
implying that they would never hear from him again. On another, he told her that he
almost wished that the supposed gang members that purportedly had a hit out on him
would put a shank into his neck.
Docket No. 166 at 3). This risk of self-harm, too, raises legitimate concerns which the Court cannot
ignore.
Having now been convicted of wire fraud, honest services fraud, and extortion under color of
official right and awaiting sentencing on those charges, Defendants request for release is governed
by 18 U.S.C. 3143. That statute requires that, unless the guidelines do not recommend a term of
imprisonment, a Defendant awaiting sentencing shall be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by
clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any
other person or the community if released[.] 18 U.S.C. 3143(a). The burden of establishing that
the defendant will not flee or pose a danger to any other person or to the community rests with the
defendant. Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(c). Because Defendant has not met that burden, his Motion for
Release From Detention (Docket No. 161) is hereby DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cr-00117 Document 171 Filed 01/23/17 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1095