Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The United States of America, by and through the United States Attorney for the
defendant Eugene J. Lockhart, Jr. (Lockhart) and would show the Court as follows:
I. Case Chronology
Dallas Division, returned an indictment charging Lockhart and other defendants with
various mortgage fraud related offenses, including the offenses of conspiracy to commit
wire fraud and bank fraud, bank fraud and wire fraud, as well as aiding and abetting in
was returned. A total of eleven defendants have been charged in this indictment. Five
defendants have entered pleas of guilty and are expected to testify. The remaining six
Lockhart made his initial appearance, was arraigned and entered a plea of not
guilty before United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan. At this initial
appearance, both Judge Kaplan and Lockhart signed the “Order Setting Conditions
of Release.” Page One of this order included three standard conditions of release.
Condition No. 1:
(1) The defendant shall not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or
local law while on release in this case.
Also included in Judge Kaplan’s order under the heading “Additional Conditions
Paragraph 7(a):
Paragraph 7(o):
conditions of release.
conditions of release. The motion to revoke alleged that Lockhart violated his
conditions of release by: (1) testing positive for cocaine in May of 2010; and
urinalysis call in system. On at least nine different days during the May-June 2010
conditions of release.
Three days after the July 9 revocation hearing, Lockhart was required to
read and sign a document entitled “Pretrial Release Reporting Instructions”. One
You shall not commit a federal, state, or local offense during the period
of release. You shall inform the Probation/Pretrial Services Officer
immediately if you are charged with an offense. (emphasis added)
While subject to the terms and conditions of pretrial release, Lockhart violated the
On October 10, 2010, at about 2:55 a.m., an Addison Police Department patrol
officer approached Lockhart’s vehicle. At that time, Lockhart occupied the back seat of
his vehicle. When initially approached, Lockhart failed to comply with the uniformed
patrol officer’s verbal commands to Lockhart to remain in the vehicle. Lockhart also
failed to comply with subsequent verbal commands to Lockhart to sit on the ground near
Lockhart’s vehicle. The patrol officer at the scene also made the following observations
about Lockhart’s condition and demeanor: red, watering and blood shot eyes; slurred
speech; unsteady balance; and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Lockhart was
On October 12, 21, 26 and 28, 2010, defendant Lockhart telephonically reported to
his pretrial services officer as instructed. However, during these multiple required
July 12, 2010. Lockhart refused to comply with these instructions when he chose not to
immediately report his arrest. In order to avoid any risk of having his bond revoked,
Lockhart chose to conceal from pretrial services not only his October 10, 2010 arrest but
also his October 19, 2010 court appearance and finding of guilt by the municipal judge.
3) Lockhart’s continuing failure to immediately report his October 10, 2010 arrest
On October 19, 2010, a Motion for Deferred Adjudication was filed on behalf of
Lockhart in the case of State of Texas vs. Eugene Lockhart, Jr., Cause Number
2010008780, in Municipal Court No. 1, Town of Addison, County of Dallas, Texas. The
attorney on behalf of Lockhart. The signature does not appear to be that of Lockhart, and
On October 21, 2010, it appears that Judge Dwight dismissed this case, stating that
the Order of Deferral was complied with. This dismissal was done at the request of
routine criminal records check that Lockhart had been arrested by Addison Police for
with his recent Addison arrest and his failure to immediately report that arrest. Lockhart
first denied being arrested by Addison Police. However, after being questioned further,
Lockhart admitted that he was arrested by Addison Police on October 10, 2010. Lockhart
also told his pretrial services officer that his attorney told Lockhart that he did not have to
ever report this arrest to his pretrial services officer, since Lockhart’s attorney was
III. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing conduct, defendant Lockhart has violated the following
conditions of release:
report to pretrial services as directed, and paragraph 7(o), requiring that Lockhart
continued to conceal) that he had been arrested and charged with an offense
Lockhart disregarded the instructions of his pretrial services officer when he chose
not to immediately report his arrest by Addison police and subsequent court action. The
motive for Lockhart’s deception and concealment is obvious. Lockhart chose to conceal
his arrest and court action in an effort to avoid facing any risk that Lockhart would have
his bond revoked and that Lockhart be detained pending trial. Lockhart has clearly
demonstrated his unwillingness to abide by the terms of release originally set by Judge
Kaplan and additional conditions imposed by Judge Toliver. Based upon Lockhart’s
required, as well as assure the safety of any other person and the community.
requests that this Court revoke Lockhart’s conditions of pretrial release. The government
further requests that this matter be set for a hearing as soon as possible so that further
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES T. JACKS
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
S/ David L. Jarvis
DAVID L. JARVIS
Assistant United States Attorney
State Bar No. 10585500
1100 Commerce Street, Third Floor
Dallas, Texas 75242-1699
Telephone: 214.659.8729
Facsimile: 241.767.4104
Email: david.jarvis@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that on March 4, 2011, the undersigned conferred with Jay
Ethington, counsel for defendant Lockhart, regarding this motion. Mr. Ethington is
opposed to the Count granting the Government’s Second Motion to Revoke Conditions of
Release.
S/ David L. Jarvis
DAVID L. JARVIS
Assistant United States Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
document with the clerk of court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas,
using the electronic case filing system of the court. The electronic case filing system sent
a “Notice of Electronic Filing” to the following attorneys of record who have consented
S/ David L. Jarvis
DAVID L. JARVIS
Assistant United States Attorney