Free Reply to Response - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

I I I I Case 1 :07—cr—00047-SLR Document.1 1· Filed 04/17/2007 Page 1 of 4
`_ _ ` I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I I _
I ` __ ` I FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE I I `
I I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : ‘ I
I I . p , Prarmirri Q I · 7
_ I v. , ” ` I Criminal Action No. 07- 47-SLR . . -
- I _ WILFREDO PINKSTON, I . _ - ’ ‘ I _
. U e . Defendant. . _ I ` II I I I
` I ‘ `_ I I-I_ · _ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S I I I
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DETENTION STATUS . .-
I I p ` NOW COMES the United States of America by and through Colm F. Connolly, United
_ I ` States Attorney for the District of DelawareI and Martin C. Meltzer, Special IAssistant United U ‘
I p States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and hereby responds to Defendant’s MotionIfor
_ I Reconsideration of Detention Status (D.I. 10) as follows: g I I _
I · 1. On April 2, 2007, the Government moved, pursuant to 18 U.s.c. § 3l42(i) to have ‘
. I the defendant detained pending trial. I ` ` I I
I I 2. The detention hearing was heard bythe Court on IApril- 9, 2007, and the defendant was
r - I detained pending trial. I ‘ ` I _ `I ‘ I II . [
I _ A 3. On April 16, 2007, the Defendant filed the instant motion. In his motion, the A _ ·
p defendant contends that he has received an offer of employment thatIconstitutes a changed I
_ circumstance from the April 9, 2007, hearing. D.I. 10, 1]]] 3L4. The defendant also reiterates - . I - _
. some of the points he argued at the April l0 hearing. D.I. l0, 1]}] 5-7; l`
I 4. A hearing may . I I _ I I
_ I r I . be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time ‘
.- _ _ . before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known I

an A I Case 1 :07-cr-00047-SLR Document 11 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 2 of 4 I
li I Z _ to the moyant at the time ofthe hearing and that has a mateiial bearing on the
. ‘ issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the · .
i ` _ · appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and the
2 _ U ( 7 ` community. _ ` _ _ `
_ 18 U.S.C. 3l42(f). _ _ I n I `
A 5. In his motion, the Defendant contends that in response to the Defendant’s proffer that
I I I General Motors "[might] be asking Mr. Pinkston to return to work for them in the coming weeks,
I I n [the Court] indicated that if M. Pinkston was able to provide proof that he had ajob waiting
for at General Motors, that the Court would consider releasing Mr. Pinkston . . 10 at (
U 6. Defendant now contends that he has in fact obtained employment and the Court should
I _ therefore revisit its bail decision. He makes pa proffer to this effect (D.I. I0 at 1] 2) and attaches a
_ . _ _ letter dated April 1,6, 2007, from Diane Graham who is identified as Manger People Systems for 0 A
- I I General Motors. D.I. 10, Ex. A. In her letter, Ms. Graham states that tl1c_Defendant "‘is being I
I v_ I considered for re-employment as a seasonable employee? Id. (emphasis added). She goes on to I -_
_ say that he is scheduled for a drug screen on April 19, 2007, and that ‘°[p]rovided that he I I Z
_ ` ‘ successfully passes, we could offer him employment for May 3, 2007.” (emphasis added). _ I
A Ms. Graham’s letter is not an offer of employment- indeed, it indicates that General Motors has _ `
` .. i‘ not committed to re-hiring the Defendant even if he passes the drug screen. There is no I ‘ ` i
.` indication in her letter that Ms. Graham is aware ofthe .defendant’s criminal history or the U
( I present charges, and there is no record as to how that information might affect her decision. -
1 '_ an 7. ln addition, employment is only one of a ntunber of factors set forth by Section I
( 3 142(g). Even assuming that the Defendant has obtained seasonal employment, the record here n I - I

. I ICase 1:07—cr—00047-SLR Document 11 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 3 of 4 I
oveiwhehningly supports detention. Delaware Icotuts have issued at least six capiases against the I
· ·Defendant for failures to appear. He has a 1995 conviction for resisting arrest, disorderly . I _ I I
‘_ conduct and terroristic threatening. He has a 1997 conviction for carrying. a concealed dangerous _
I instrument. He also has a .1998 conviction for two counts of assault first degree and one count of -
I_ possession of a fireann dtuing the commission of a felony; According to the bail report, the I
p Defendant’s assault conviction involved a. gunfight with another man. Two men standing with _
J that other man were shot. He was sentenced following the assault conviction to sevenI and one I
4 - p . half years imprisonment followed by seven years probation. The Defendant has one violation of I ·
I I ·· _ probation in hiIs record and in fact was on probation at the time of the current offense. In sum, ‘
_ _ _theIDefendant’s record compels the conclusion that he is a danger to the community and presents _
a risk of non-appearance' that is not offset in any substantial way by the purported conditional I
I offer of employment by General Motors. Thus, the government a . _ I
I I I I {On the issue of non-appearance, the Defendant contends that the Court’s reservations A I _ _
‘ i " about release could be "quelled?’ by electronic monitoring However, “[e]lectronic monitoring
·_ and other means of personal supervision are insufficient, however, because they only notify - I
9 · authorities that the defendant is already fleeing." United States v. Chagm, 850 F.Supp. 354, 360 , Z
(W.D.Pa. 1994) (citationomitted). ’_ ` _ _

A- Case 1 :07—cr—00047-SLR Document 1 1 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 4 of 4
. - ` respectfully requests that the Court deny the instant Motion without a hearing. -_._ _
Q Y . Respeetfully submitted, . n
‘ . · ` ` l - U COLM F. CCNNOLLY U
- I - _ United States Attorney
` _ _ Martin C. Meltzer I _
` p _ t - . Special Assistant United State Attorney ` _ _
l _ - _ Da1;e:‘Aptil 18, 2007 ` l l _ . U _ . A C