Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cr-00331/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cr-00331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David John Carli
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CR. NO. S-06-0331 EJG (GGH)

vs.

DAVID JOHN CARLI,

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Introduction and Summary

On August 25 and 29, 2006, the court held an evidentiary hearing in the matter of

defendant’s (Carli) detention or release on conditions. The United States had sought Carli’s

detention on grounds of flight risk and danger to the community. For the reasons set forth below,

the court finds that conditions could be fashioned to reasonably assure Carli’s appearance if

released, but that the government has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that no

conditions reasonably exist which would assure the safety of the community if Carli were to be

released. 

Background

Carli was indicted on August 17, 2006, on two counts of possession of child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). One of the counts concerns matters

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 12
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

 It is difficult to precisely understand how child pornography could be possessed without 1

having been received as those terms are utilized in the statute. However, “receipt” connotes

more affirmative acts of direct acquisition than does mere “possession.”

 All further references to criminal statutes are to Title 18 unless otherwise specified. 2

 Chapter 110 encompasses the indicted offenses here. 3

2

occurring in 2002, the other in 2004. The reasons for the relatively belated submittal of these

matters for United States Attorney action are not completely known to the undersigned, but it

appears to have been caused by at least one state prosecution for actual molestation gone

somewhat awry. The “awry” plays a role in the facts pertinent to the detention issue which are

discussed below.

Legal Standards

“Possession” of child pornography, unlike “receipt” of such (18 U.S.C.

2252(a)(2)) is not a presumptive detention offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142 § (e). However, it is

1 2

defined as a crime of violence, § 3156 (4)(C) , which is a trigger for finding “danger to the 3

community if released” if the circumstances and proof so warrant. § 3142(f)(1)(A).

Release on conditions is the general rule, and not the exception:

The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141, et seq., requires

the release of a person facing trial under the least restrictive

condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the appearance of the person as required and the safety of the

community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(2); United States v. Motamedi,

767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir.1985). Only in rare circumstances

should release be denied, and doubts regarding the propriety of

release should be resolved in the defendant’s favor. Motamedi,

767 F.2d at 1405. On a motion for pretrial detention, the

government bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the

evidence that the defendant poses a flight risk, and by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the

community. Id. at 1406-07.

U.S. v. Gebro, 948 F.2d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 1991).

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 12
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

3

Danger to the Communbity

The following factors found in § 3142(g) should be considered in determining

whether a person poses danger to the community:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the

offense is a crime of violence; 

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

(3) The history and characteristics of the person, including – 

(A) the person’s character, physical and mental condition, family ties,

employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community, community ties, past

conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse, criminal history, and record concerning

appearance at court proceedings; and

(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on

probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or completion of

sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and

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

would be posed by the person’s release.

“We have observed that it was Congress’s intent that the ‘safety of any other

person’ include the defendant’s level of dangerousness to any identifiable individual, notably a

victim or witness.” United States v. Norris, __F.3d__, 2006 WL 1889654 (11th Cir. 2006).

Flight Risk

The very same factors apply to consideration of flight risk; however, the focus on

application is completely different. Whether one will commit injury does not necessarily relate

to one’s propensity to appear in court. Obviously, there is risk of flight in every decision to order

release pretrial. No adjudicating official can probe the present and future mind set of a defendant

in such verifiable detail to guarantee that no flight will occur. Nevertheless, the law does not

require such absolute assurance, United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887 (8th Cir. 1985); rather, it is

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 12
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

4

the government’s burden pretrial to demonstrate that no conditions or combinations of conditions

can be set which reasonably will assure the defendant’s appearance. Congress has indicated that,

overall, pretrial release is the rule, and detention is the exception. As observed above, “[o]nly in

rare circumstances should release be denied, and doubts regarding the propriety of release should

be resolved in the defendant’s favor.” United States v. Gebro, supra at 1121 (citing United States

v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 1403, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985)).

There are some crimes by their nature which suggest flight, e.g., prison escape,

and some crimes which do not suggest flight at all, e.g., non-aggravated battery. Also very

pertinent to this category is the potential, realistic sentence to be imposed if the defendant is

found guilty. It takes no extensive exercise in logic to realize that the more potential time one

can be locked away in prison, the more tendency there may be to flee. Moreover, the older one

happens to be, the danger of flight becomes more apparent if any sentence to be imposed will

essentially be coextensive with one’s life expectancy.

Analysis

The court will not extensively discuss flight risk here. The government argues

that because the defendant has substantial assets, he is a candidate for flight. In the ordinary

case, the opposite argument is made – because the defendant has no assets he is a flight risk. 

Defendant has substantial assets, but they are non-liquid, real estate assets. They are also not in

the sole control of this defendant but are also controlled by the uncharged defendant’s brother. 

Although some of the assets generate income, it is unrealistic to believe that the income could be

directed to a foreign, secret place, or that defendant’s brother would commit a crime by aiding

the flight of his brother by forwarding income to him. In short, conditions could be fashioned, 

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 4 of 12
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

 Although Carli is in his 60’s, and a significant sentence would cut into his remaining 4

years, the posting of adequate bond would be a satisfactory deterrent in this case. It is also

difficult for a person in the mid-60s to simply pick up and move (without real access to

resources) to a secretive or foreign place.

5

i.e., tying up the real property with significant bond liens, which would reasonably assure the

appearance of this defendant.4

Danger to the community is the real point of contention here. The court heard

testimony, ranging from persons who testified as having been molested as a child by Carli all the

way to persons who to this day think of him as a kind “Grandpa.” The court heard of numerous

investigations, observations, accusations and speculation concerning Carli’s activities. Grossly

conflicting accounts were presented of witness intimidation – grossly conflicting even from the

same person himself. The government argued that Carli could not be released given his record of

child molestation and intimidation. Carli argued that none of the government’s witnesses could

be believed. The undersigned will make his findings below.

The undersigned pauses to make explicit here what he said at hearing. It is not the

function of a judge hearing a detention matter to punish a person for past misdeeds, proven or

not. Rather, the sole focus is the present potential danger to the community if the defendant were

to be released pretrial, and whether conditions could be imposed which would reasonably

alleviate the danger.

Nature and Circumstances of the Charges, and Whether the Charge is a Crime of 

Violence

Congress has thought it prudent to elevate possession of child pornography to a

“crime of violence” status; this is Congress’ way of telling judges that special caution should be

exercised before releasing a person charged with such an offense. Even persons who simply

possess child pornography, and are not latent or patent pedophiles in their own right (perhaps not

realistically possible), are tacitly encouraging the trade in child exploitation. This is dangerous to

society. While conditions could be imposed to make access to child pornography more difficult,

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 5 of 12
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

 Scott made clear that the government’s interest in preventing further crime is not a 5

“special need” which would permit searches on less than probable cause. 450 F.3d at 870.

 The undersigned does not view this discussion as one punishing a potential releasee for 6

assertion of Fourth Amendment rights. The simple point is that if a condition is unavailable for

use, it is unavailable – period – no matter what the reason. The detention issue must be viewed

in the context of what viable conditions may be ordered.

6

the government is not in the position to realistically monitor on a quasi-“real time” basis the

reading/viewing propensities of the defendant. The Ninth Circuit decision in United States v.

Scott, 450 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2006) (as amended), either wittingly or unwittingly, took away from

the district court a valuable tool in this respect. No longer can a court impose conditions which

would permit law enforcement to search a pretrial releasee unannounced without probable cause. 

Even if a defendant, pre-trial releasee expressly waives his Fourth Amendment rights, the Ninth

Circuit held that such a waiver was coerced and unenforceable. Thus, the ability of pretrial

services or law enforcement to protect the safety of the community, as Congress has seen fit to

define it, is greatly reduced, and what once was a very viable condition to alleviate the danger in

this type of case is unavailable. The tool of “pre-agreed to” consent searches was especially

important where the evidence demonstrated that the defendant, as here, is a long time, heavy

child pornography user. The nature of the charge, and the inability to supervise the defendant in

5

respect to similar activities, weigh in favor of detention.6

The court has considered the circumstance that, as far as child pornography charges

go, the present charges are quite dated. The argument could (and was) made – what makes the

defendant a danger now, if the government did not for years see fit to get him out of the

community by arrest – why is he now a clear and present danger? However, the evidence

demonstrated that a different sovereign (Nevada City/County) acquired the child pornography and

was pursuing the more serious charges of actual child molestation at least in 2004. The fact that

the child witnesses were intimidated (if the government is to be believed) or otherwise recanted 

\\\\\

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 6 of 12
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

7

for their own reasons, which made the prosecution very difficult, the United States did not

acquiesce in Carli’s non-arrest.

The Weight of the Evidence 

The weight of the evidence is strong at this point. No less than tens, possibly

hundreds, if not thousands, of unlawful pictures have been seized. The defense has not at this

point indicated that the pictures are computer created (virtual) child pornography, nor has any

indication been made thus far that strong Fourth Amendment violation claims may be sustainable

here with respect to the pictures. The court presumes at this point that the Grand Jury indictment

is valid. Although the least important factor in a detention analysis, United States v. Winsor, 785

F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir.1986), the weight of the evidence remains a factor and weighs against

release.

The Person’s Character, Past Conduct, etc.

This factor encompassed most of the hearing testimony. At first, the government

proffered investigatory reports through a Nevada City police officer (who also was tasked with

working with the County Sheriff’s Department), Sergeant Badour. The reports included

interviews of actual child molest victims – victims of Carli. Sgt. Badour focused on three

individuals, Ben and John, and another boy who had been interviewed by a private investigator. 

According to Badour, both Ben and John, boys who were either runaways (John), or over whom

parents exercised little supervision (Ben), were drawn to Carli’s house by promises of food, beer

and marijuana. Both Ben and John were later offered money to engage in sex acts for Carli. Ben

was sodomized by Carli on several occasions when he was underage. After agreeing to perform

one act of masturbation for money, John refused further sexual overtures by Carli. Badour also

related that a third boy, interviewed by Deborah Newby, broke down when confronted with

questions about Carli’s activities to the extent that he could not be questioned further. Sgt.

Badour also spoke of Carli’s paying for gifts, at times expensive gifts, for many boys who would

come to his house. There was no doubt that the Carli house often had numerous young boys and

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 7 of 12
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

 No evidence has been produced before the undersigned to indicate at this time that the 7

2002 search was overbroad.

8

some young women at his (and his brother’s) household. Importantly, Sgt. Badour testified that

both Ben and John had been threatened by Carli for their perceived assistance to law enforcement

concerning Carli’s activities. Ben had been beat up, and John believed that he was the subject of a

possible hit/murder instigated by Carli.

Badour also testified concerning the 2002 and 2004 search warrants and charges

against Carli. In 2002, Carli was charged with cultivation of marijuana and possession of

marijuana for sale. The 2002 search of the Carli residence revealed not only evidence of

marijuana usage, but also numerous indicia of adult and child pornography. Especially pertinent 7

was this annotation from the report of the searching officer (Govt. Exhibit 3): “Around the

computer, I located (17) Digital photos and pictures of young boys involved in sexual acts. The

items appeared to be downloaded from the computer.” However, Carli was only charged with

marijuana offenses to which he ultimately pled to a misdemeanor count of possession of over one

ounce of marijuana. No charges were filed concerning child pornography, and the undersigned

remains unsure why such were not filed in state court.

The 2004 search warrant and charges against Carli stemmed for the most part from

allegations Ben had leveled at Carli concerning molestation when Ben was a minor, and continued

distribution of marijuana to young children. Under police supervision, Ben (now an adult) was

given marijuana by both David and Daniel Carli. A search warrant was later executed (with

young boys present in the Carli house). Amounts of marijuana were found throughout the house

and on the person of Carli. More indicia of pornography and child pornography were seized. 

Both Carlis were arrested; David Carli was also charged with molestation stemming from Ben’s

complaints. 

Again, however, Carli pleaded only to a misdemeanor marijuana charge. Ben had

retracted all his molestation charges against Carli, and Ben had sex charge troubles of his own

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 8 of 12
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

9

(sex with a minor). Again, there is no clear record of why child pornography charges were not

pursued in state court, but the educated guess is that the prosecution’s case had fallen apart with

the retraction as well as the fact that Ben failed to appear in proceedings connected with the Carli

case.

At the conclusion of Sgt. Badour’s testimony, and because Sgt. Badour had related

that Ben was now willing and able to testify, the court determined that it required this testimony,

especially about the witness/victim threats. Ben appeared for testimony and John did as well. 

John commenced the testimony. Both John and Ben recounted that, when they were minors, Carli

would attempt to entice some, but not all, boys present in the Carli home for sexual favors. Ben

testified, reluctantly, about his own experiences in submitting to Carli’s sexual requests. The

undersigned will not repeat all descriptions given by the two witnesses. However, testimony was

received about payment for sexual acts, Carli’s fascination with viewing semen from boys under a

microscope, and the routine supply of marijuana and alcohol to minors. John testified that he had

been told that a contract was out for him because of his cooperation with police in this case. Ben

recounted several violent, retribution type incidents which he correlated to his activity on behalf

of the police. Both witnesses, especially Ben, were impeached by their own criminal activity

(relatively petty in the case of John). Counsel for Carli brought out and emphasized the fact that

Ben had first related his victim status to the police when under arrest for his own sex charges. 

Ben was especially impeached about retribution when it turned out that, concerning the most

important incident – a mass battery – he had told the police initially he believed the cause to be his

own involvement with the underage girlfriend – not the doing of Carli.

The undersigned listened closely to John’s and Ben’s testimony. Despite the

impeachment on several matters, the undersigned found them credible with respect to their

testimony about Carli’s sex-with-minors. John was visibly angry at Carli, and at times would

look directly at him and call him a monster. Ben was shaken and despondent about his more

serious sexual activity with Carli. The undersigned did not find these emotions practiced or

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 9 of 12
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

10

feigned. However, what impressed the undersigned most of all with their testimony was that,

despite the fact that these two had not spoken to each other, at least recently, about what

transpired in the Carli household, the testimony was similar in so many respects. The undersigned

had to wrestle with Ben’s one-time retractions, as well as the circumstances in which he related

the abuse to authorities; however, Ben’s in-court under oath testimony was credible in respect to

the sex charges. Moreover, the testimony of both John and Ben was buttressed by that other

testimony by Sgt. Badour (including the victim that broke down upon questioning) concerning the

unlawful sexual advances made by Carli. Furthermore, Carli has been indicted on child

pornography charges. Such makes the testimony of John and Ben with respect to the illicit sexual

acts much more probable than not.

The court also refers to the rather strange rambling letter written by Carli (half will

and testament and half philosophizing), discovered in the 2002 search warrant execution in which

he wrote:

Most females are stupid emotional wrecks, they raise sons who are

stupid female controled (sic) males.

A german (sic) study of 8,000 boys who were molested, showed

than (sic) not one had a life time negative effect, even boys who

were forced. Don’t make victims out of boys[.] [L]et them become

men. Only men can make a boy a man. Females only make a boy a

good boy man...

Govt. Exhibit 1

Strange indeed – and the letter is indicative of a mindset which believes child

molestation is good for minors. Nothing in this letter conflicts with the testimony of John and

Ben; the letter adds to the credibility of such testimony.

The undersigned was not persuaded by Carli’s character witnesses who spoke of

Carli as a “Grandfather” figure. These witnesses, for the most part, would not even concede that

marijuana and alcohol were supplied to minors despite the fact that even on the search warrant

days, such was found all over the house. While Carli chose his victims for sexual favors, and

apparently not everyone was chosen, the undersigned finds that such illicit sexual activities took

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 10 of 12
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

11

place. The whole “young boy atmosphere,” including their ubiquitous presence, and the

exorbitant gifts were simply too strange to be explained by some altruistic intent. The painting of

the Carli household as one simply to benefit wayward boys, and sometimes girls, is hardly one

based in reality.

The undersigned cannot find, however, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Carli has engaged in witness intimidation. While the government has certainly raised this

possibility by virtue of the evidence presented, in that John and Ben have been subject to

undisputed violent threats and acts, the link to Carli is speculative at best. In addition, Ben

initially linked the assaultive activities to his own problems and not that of Carli’s activities with

him. 

The Nature and Seriousness of the Danger to Any Person or the Community That Would 

Be Posed by Carli’s Release

Congress had something in mind when it made possession of child pornography a

danger to the community triggering offense, i.e., a crime of violence. Obviously, Congress was

concerned that one arrested for such possession might just continue assisting the exploitation of

children, if released, see U.S. v. Devinna, 5 F. Supp. 2d 872, 873-874 (E.D. Cal. 1998), and that

persons who possessed such pornography might well engage in molestation themselves, see

United States v. Coffey, 2001 WL 1249684 (N.D.N.Y. 2001). Again, the point to be decided here

is whether, despite those Congressional concerns, conditions may exist which would reasonably

assure the safety of the community if Carli were to be released. The undersigned finds not.

Most significantly, after the Scott decision, little in the way of effective monitoring

could be performed, either with respect to viewing child pornography or having minors over to the

Carli home. Carli was evidently unimpressed with his earliest brush with the law, and continued

to maintain child pornography at his house which was thereafter seized during the 2004 warrant. 

In light of his “commitment” to making “real men,” and his self-professed philosophy, the court

does not find it likely that he would refrain from either acquiring more child pornography or

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 11 of 12
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

 “The government also points out that this record reveals that Mr. Turchen posed a risk 8

of recidivism and remained a danger to the community. His child pornography distribution over

the internet and his collection of pornography in his home, amassed after his “rehabilitation,”

show that there is no error, plain or clear, in the court’s way of looking at the undisputed facts.

Indeed, the district court’s explicit mention of its obligation ‘to protect society’ suggests strongly

that the court was concerned about the possibility of recidivism.”

12

subjects for his sexual endeavors. This is a valid basis on which to find danger to the community. 

Cf. U.S. v. Turchen, 187 F.3d 735, 742 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover, in light of his rather constant 8

distribution of marijuana, and his refusal to abstain from such even after his initial 2002 charges,

the court finds it unlikely that he would refrain from distributing marijuana or alcohol to minors.

Conclusion

The court finds that the factors warranting detention predominate, and that the

government has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that defendant Carli would be a danger

to the community, if released. The court further finds that conditions to reasonably assure the

protection of the community do not exist in Carli’s case. He shall be detained on that basis.

DATED: 9/6/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:gh:035

carli.det

Case 2:06-cr-00331-WBS Document 12 Filed 09/06/06 Page 12 of 12