Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00385/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00385-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donovan Duree
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

EUMI L. CHOI (WVBN 0722) 

Chief, Criminal Division

SUSAN R. JERICH (CSBN 188462) 

Assistant United States Attorneys

450 Golden Gate Ave. 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7158

Facsimile: 415-436-7234

Email: susan.jerich@usdoj.gov

 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No.: CR 05 00385 VRW 

) 

Plaintiff, ) ORDER FOR DETENTION

) PENDING TRIAL 

v. )

) 

) 

DONOVAN DUREE, ) 

)

Defendant. )

 ) SAN FRANCISCO VENUE

This matter came before the Court on July 14, 2005 for a detention hearing. Defendant

Donovan Duree was present with his counsel, Daniel Blank. Assistant United States Attorney

Susan R. Jerich appeared for the government. Additional hearings were held on August 23, and

August 31, 2005. Both parties proceeded by proffer. In addition, the parties filed briefs and

submitted documentary evidence pertaining to Mr. Duree’s prior arrests and parole revocations.

The Court had reviewed the initial and supplemental reports of Pretrial Services.

Both sides were afforded an opportunity prior to the hearing to review the bail reports of

Case 3:05-cr-00385-VRW Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Pretrial Services. The government recommended detention on the grounds of both danger to the

community and flight risk. Pretrial Services also recommended detention on these grounds. 

Defendant opposed detention.

The facts underlying the indictment in the instant case as proffered by the government are

as follows. The defendant was observed by San Francisco police officers driving his vehicle in a

reckless manner. The defendant was initially observed by these officers, who were in uniform

and in a marked patrol car, running numerous stop signs in the Bayview district. The defendant

ran a red light and narrowly avoided a collision with a MUNI bus. Finally, the defendant

eventually collided into a light pole near the intersection of Oakdale and Keith streets. 

Subsequently, the defendant got out of his vehicle and began running in the direction of

George Washington Carver elementary school. As he began to flee, the defendant looked back

at the officers. The officers ordered the defendant to stop. Instead, the defendant kept running,

at one point, tripping and falling. The defendant got up and looked back directly at the officers. 

As he did so, he pulled up his pants and the officers saw the handle of a firearm protruding from

the defendant’s waistband. 

With their weapons drawn, the officers continued chasing the defendant and ordered him

to stop. The defendant did not comply. However, eventually, the defendant was stopped at a 15'

fence located at the south end of the elementary school. The officers observed the defendant

throw what was later determined to be a loaded, Uzi assault rifle onto the roof of the school. 

Inside the defendant’s car, the officers discovered .22 caliber and 9 millimeter ammunition.

Defendant’s criminal record is lengthy and disturbing. The record prepared by Pretrial

Services for the Court and counsel’s review was four pages in length. It evidences a history of

noncompliance with Court orders and a general lack of amenability to formal supervision. The

record contains parole and probation violations and indicates failures to appear in court. 

Moreover, in addition to felony convictions for narcotics sales, the defendant’s criminal history

revealed a history of arrests involving narcotics, firearms, and other violent offenses including,

Case 3:05-cr-00385-VRW Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 3

but not limited to, robbery. Finally, the criminal history indicated more than one incident on

which the defendant had been charged with contempt of court. 

Pretrial Services noted that the defendant, a twenty-eight year old male, is not presently

employed nor has he ever had or maintained any form of lawful employment. 

The Court concluded, after full detention hearings and argument, that the government had

met its burden of demonstrating that the defendant was a flight risk and further, by clear and

convincing evidence, that he posed a danger to the community such that it could not fashion

release conditions that would ameliorate these concerns. The Court concluded that Defendant

must be detained pending trial in this matter. This Order supplements the Court’s findings

announced from the bench and serves as a written findings of fact and statement of reasons as

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i)(1).

The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-50, sets forth four factors which the

Court must consider in determining whether pretrial detention is warranted. These factors are:

(1) the nature and seriousness of the offense charged;

(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person including, inter alia, character,

employment, family, and criminal history; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that

would be posed by the person’s release.

With regard to the first factor, the nature and seriousness of the offense charged, a federal

grand jury has indicted Defendant for possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The Court considers the offense to be a serious charge. 

Turning to the second factor, the weight of the evidence, this is the least important of the

factors, and the bail statute neither requires nor permits a pretrial determination of guilt. United

States v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 1991). The government proffers that

Defendant was apprehended after first leading police officers on a reckless vehicle chase ending

Case 3:05-cr-00385-VRW Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 4

with defendant’s collision into a light pole and then fleeing from police officers at the scene. 

Eventually, the defendant was trapped by a 15' fence on the property of a public elementary

school where he was observed throwing a loaded, Uzi assault weapon onto the roof of the

school. Although the least weighty factor, defendant’s flight and possession of a loaded

automatic weapon indicate he presents a danger and displays disregard for the law.

Concerning the history and characteristics of the defendant, the Court notes that

Defendant has a significant criminal history. In the last nine years, he has suffered a felony and

two misdemeanor convictions. Significantly, Defendant has been violated while on parole on

four occasions and has been revoked twice while on probation. These revocations involved

serious or violent crimes and/or possession of firearms. He was charged with absconding from

parole and has been held in contempt of court four times. On one occasion in June, 1998, he

violated a court order after being found in contempt just the day before.

To be sure, defendant’s father, aunt and cousins have come forward to act as custodian

and/or surety for defendant. However, these individuals appear not to have been able to

influence defendant’s conduct, as defendant has committed numerous offenses and violations

despite their association with him. Moreover, the supplemental Pretrial Services report indicates

an aunt and uncle have declined to serve as surety. The Court also notes that at twenty-eight

years of age, the defendant is not currently employed and has never maintained lawful

employment of any kind. 

With respect to the danger to the community posed by defendant, the Court notes that

defendant led police officers on a reckless vehicle chase in which he ran several stop signs, a red

light and eventually collided into a light pole. Further, the defendant fled from police officers

and eventually was discovered to have possessed a loaded, Uzi assault rifle. Combined with his

criminal record, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant poses a

substantial danger to the community. 

The Court further finds that defendant’s past conduct does not demonstrate that he is

Case 3:05-cr-00385-VRW Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DETENTION ORDER 5

amenable to supervision. The record of parole violations, probation revocations, contempts of

court, at least one non-appearance on a DMV matter, as well as his alleged flight in the instant

offense establishes such.

The Court finds, for all the reasons adduced at the hearing, and including those set forth

above, that defendant at present poses a danger to the community and a risk of flight. This ruling

is without prejudice to defendant’s proposing a different set of release conditions and/or coming

forward with further information bearing on his fitness to be released pending a resolution of this

matter.

Accordingly, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(i), it is ORDERED that:

(1) Defendant be, and hereby is, committed to the custody of the Attorney General for

confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or

serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal;

(2) Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with his

counsel; and 

 (3) On order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the

government, the person in charge of the corrections facility in which the defendant is confined 

shall deliver Defendant to an authorized Deputy United States Marshal for the purpose of any

appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2005 

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-00385-VRW Document 20 Filed 09/15/05 Page 5 of 5