UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-MJ-3273-DAMIAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AARON THOMAS MITCHELL,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DETENTION

Mr. Mitchell has spent the last three months on a state bond. He has had no 

issues while on bond. He has not attempted to flee. He has not threatened anyone. 

He has not committed any acts of violence. He has not missed any court dates. He 

has not tried to contact the alleged victim or her family. He voluntarily surrendered 

to the FBI after he learned of his federal indictment. 

Mr. Mitchell is not a flight risk or a danger and he should be released on a bond 

similar to the bond he received in Arizona.

RELEVANT FACTS

Mr. Mitchell was arrested on April 26, 2022, in Sierra Vista, Arizona. At the 

time of his arrest, Mr. Mitchell had been employed by U.S. Border Patrol for 

approximately ten months. Before moving to Arizona to work for the Border Patrol, 

Mr. Mitchell was born and raised in Miami, Florida. He graduated from Miami-Dade 

College and worked at the Port of Miami as a terminal agent. 

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 1 of 9
2

According to bond documents from Arizona and the Pretrial Services Report 

(“PTS Report”), Mr. Mitchell is facing eighteen counts in Cochise County Superior 

Court. (PTS Report at 2; Ex. A (Bond Receipt).) Felony sentences for defendants with 

no criminal history, like Mr. Mitchell, are based on a presumptive guideline and can 

be adjusted down to minimum or mitigated levels or up to maximum or aggravated 

levels. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-702. A preliminary calculation shows that Mr. 

Mitchell is facing a presumptive sentence of at least 25 years if the counts are run 

consecutive. See id. at §§ 13-1304, 1404, 1406, 1412, 2310, 2409, 3554; see also id. at 

§ 13-711.

On May 4, 2022, Mr. Mitchell was arraigned in Superior Court in Cochise 

County. The court set a $200,000 10% bond with the following conditions: GPS 

monitoring; no contact with the victim or victim’s family; must maintain contact with 

his attorney; must appear at all court appearances; and must obey all state, county, 

and federal laws. (Ex. B, Arraignment Minute Entry.) He was also required to remain 

in Arizona. The alleged victim and her victim advocate were present for the 

arraignment. (Id.) The arraignment and discussion of bond took approximately 45 

minutes. (Id.) Mr. Mitchell’s family posted $20,000 with a surety company the same 

day to satisfy the court-ordered bond and Mr. Mitchell was released.

On May 17, 2022, the Superior Court granted Mr. Mitchell’s unopposed motion 

to modify the conditions of his release. (Ex. C.) The court permitted Mr. Mitchell to 

leave Arizona to live with his parents in Florida. Electronic monitoring remained in 

effect. 

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 2 of 9
3

After the bond modification, Mr. Mitchell returned to Florida to live with his 

parents. His mother is a retired Miami-Dade Police Officer. His father is a retired 

Miami Beach Police Officer who started his law enforcement career working for the 

Bureau of Prisons in Miami.

On June 13, 2022, a pretrial conference was held in the Superior Court in 

Arizona. Mr. Mitchell appeared via Zoom with the court’s permission.

On July 13, 2022, Mr. Mitchell was indicted in the District of Arizona. The 

indictment was sealed and an arrest warrant issued the next day.

On July 27, 2022, Mr. Mitchell voluntarily surrendered without incident at the 

FBI Miami Division office.

Mr. Mitchell never violated his bond while released. 

ARGUMENT

I. The Presumption under § 3142(e)(3)(E) is Easily Rebutted.

The presumption of detention under § 3142(e)(3)(E) is subject to rebuttal. The 

burden of production to rebut that presumption “is not a heavy one to meet.” United 

States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986); see, e.g., United States v. 

Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 945 (6th Cir. 2010); United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 

1355 (10th Cir. 1991). As the Government concedes, the burden of persuasion never 

shifts and remains with the Government. (Gov’t Mot. at 6.) Once rebutted, “the 

presumption is just one factor among many.” United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 

384 (1st Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. O’Brien, 895 F.2d 

810 (1st Cir. 1990).

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 3 of 9
4

Turning to the § 3142(g) factors, Mr. Mitchell’s history and characteristics 

alone rebut the presumption. He has no criminal history. (PTS Report at 2.) We know 

from the nature of his hiring by the U.S. Border Patrol that he has no history of drug 

or alcohol abuse and that he was subject to a Tier V background investigation, 

including a polygraph and SF-86 form.1 Mr. Mitchell also has a supportive family 

here in Miami who he was residing with and who are willing to act as third-party 

custodians and co-signers, and provide him with a place to live while on bond. Mr. 

Mitchell has been on bond for the last three months and has not violated any 

conditions. He also voluntarily surrendered to federal authorities. See United States 

v. Fiandor, 874 F. Supp. 1358, 1361 (S.D. Fla. 1995) (“A defendant’s voluntary 

surrender undoubtedly is probative of whether he or she presents a flight risk.”).

There is no reason to believe that if given a bond in this case, he will behave 

differently.

Even setting aside his family ties, family support, longtime residence in the 

community, lack of criminal history, and pristine record of appearance, and turning 

to § 3142(g)(4), there is no evidence that Mr. Mitchell is currently a danger to any 

person or the community. Again, he has done nothing while on his state bond to 

suggest that he is a danger to any person or to the community. Indeed, he has been 

living here in Miami as part of our community for the past several months without 

incident.

 

1 See U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Applicant Resources, Suitability 

Overview, available at: https://www.cbp.gov/careers/car/suitability (last accessed 

July 30, 2022).

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 4 of 9
5

II. Mr. Mitchell is Not a Danger or a Flight Risk.

The Government has the burden to prove that no release condition can 

reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance or the safety of the community.

If the weight of the evidence or the possible sentence were enough to mandate 

detention under the Bail Reform Act, Congress would have said as much.2 But it 

didn’t. The Government ignores the fact that Mr. Mitchell spent twelve weeks on bond 

and none of the parade of horribles cited by the Government have come to pass. 

A. Risk of Flight.

The Government confuses the incentive to flee with the risk that a defendant 

will act or has the means to act on that incentive. First, the “incentive to flee” that 

the Government insists exists after the federal indictment also existed after Mr. 

Mitchell was arraigned and released from state court. Mr. Mitchell has had three 

months to “flee.” He has not. The Government cannot point to any evidence beyond 

the new federal charge to support its argument that Mr. Mitchell is a serious flight 

risk.3 In fact, Mr. Mitchell’s behavior while on bond strongly suggests that any 

incentive to flee has been ameliorated by the $20,000 in collateral pledged by his 

 

2 The Government makes much of the 20-year mandatory minimum in this case. As 

stated in the Fact section, supra, Mr. Mitchell is facing a significant sentence in state 

court. In fact, the state charges cover a much broader array of alleged criminal 

behavior, including fraud, obstruction, and various sex crimes. Mr. Mitchell didn’t 

flee after being arraigned on those very serious charges.

3 The argument that because Mr. Mitchell was a border patrol officer for 10 months 

and he is therefore an expert on fleeing to a foreign country should be given no weight. 

The Government has proffered no evidence that Mr. Mitchell planned or plans to flee 

or has the financial resources to flee. Mr. Mitchell has had opportunities to flee by 

land in Arizona or by sea in Miami. He has done neither. 

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 5 of 9
6

family on the state percentage bond. In this case, the Court is free to impose a similar 

financial condition, and/or require that one or both of Mr. Mitchell’s parents act as 

third-party custodians. 

The cases cited by the Government regarding flight are inapposite. The 

defendant in Scali was seeking a bond pending sentencing after pleading guilty to 

multiple felonies. 738 F. App’x 32, 33 (2d Cir. 2018) (“Having been found guilty of 

multiple felonies, Scali no longer has a substantive constitutional right to bail 

pending sentencing.”). In asking the Court to ignore Mr. Mitchell’s three months of 

compliance with his state bond, the Government cites Martin, a drug conspiracy case 

where there was strong evidence that the twice-convicted defendant “continues to 

possess the means, the ability, and the will to ship large quantities of marijuana 

across the United States and enrich himself in the process.” 2017 WL 4080689, at *2 

(S.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2017). In other words, there was evidence of continuing criminal 

conduct. There is no evidence of that here. The Government’s citations to Oliver and 

King fail for similar reasons. The court in Oliver found an unacceptable risk of flight 

because the record demonstrated that Mr. Oliver had “ready access to significant 

amounts of cash” and had traveled internationally in the recent past. 2016 WL 

1746853, at *9 (W.D. Pa. May 3, 2016). In King, the defendant had “substantial drug 

connections outside the United States,” “funds to finance flight” and no stable 

residence. 849 F.2d 485, 489 (11th Cir. 1988). Here, Mr. Mitchell is unemployed, will 

live with his parents, can be monitored, and, as evidenced by undersigned’s 

representation, has no significant financial resources.

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 6 of 9
7

B. Dangerousness.

The arguments regarding dangerousness made by the Government fall into 

two categories: (1) generic arguments that ignore Mr. Mitchell’s history and 

characteristics and could apply to anyone arrested for any serious crime and (2) 

arguments that require the Court to believe that Mr. Mitchell—if given a bond in 

federal court—is going to behave drastically different from how he behaved while on 

his state bond.

First, Mr. Mitchell has no criminal history. The Government cites (again) to 

the possible sentence in this case to support the argument that Mr. Mitchell “has 

nothing to lose” and will therefore commit other crimes if released. (Gov’t Mot. at 11.) 

He committed no crimes before his arrest in this case and he has committed no crimes 

since being released on the state bond.

Next, the Government argues that a statement muttered to himself is evidence 

that Mr. Mitchell intends to harm the alleged victim. In context, it is clear that Mr. 

Mitchell is upset that M.V. has accused him of kidnapping and rape. It is “crazy” and 

he “cannot believe” it. There is no evidence that this was a genuine threat. In fact, 

Mr. Mitchell did “get out of here.” He was released on a bond and was in Arizona for 

two weeks. He did nothing to M.V. or her family. Instead, he complied with the terms 

and conditions of his bond and stayed away from her—which is exactly what he would 

do here in Miami. And here, unlike in Arizona, he is 2,000 miles and one international 

border away from the alleged victim who resides in Mexico.

And finally, stipulated or not, the Superior Court and the state of Arizona 

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 7 of 9
8

agreed that a bond was appropriate for Mr. Mitchell. The fact that it was not 

contested by the State or, according to the United States, questioned by the court, 

cuts against the Government—it was so obvious that Mr. Mitchell was neither a flight 

risk or a danger that the State agreed that he should be released.

III. A Combination of Conditions Exist That Will Reasonably Assure Mr. 

Mitchell’s Appearance and the Safety of the Alleged Victim and 

Community.

The following bond and special conditions will assure Mr. Mitchell’s 

appearance and the safety of the alleged victim and community:

- A $250,000 personal surety bond co-signed by Thomasena Mitchell and 

Daniel Mitchell, Jr.

- Mr. Mitchell will: surrender all passports and travel documents, report 

to PTS as directed, avoid all contact with victim M.V. and her family, 

refrain from possessing a firearm, not visit any commercial 

transportation establishment.

- Mr. Mitchell will be subject to location monitoring. He will reside with 

his parents at their home in Miami Gardens.

- Thomasena Mitchell will agree to act as a third-party custodian.

- Neither Thomasena Mitchell or Daniel Mitchell, Jr. will sell, pledge, 

mortgage, encumber, etc. the real property they own in Miami Gardens.

- Mr. Mitchell may travel to and from the District of Arizona and the 

Southern District of Florida and must notify PTS of travel plans.

CONCLUSION

The allegations against Mr. Mitchell are shocking and undoubtedly serious, 

but they remain allegations. A detention order predicated solely on the weight of the 

evidence would violate § 3142(j). Mr. Mitchell is presumed innocent. He has no 

criminal history, a stable and supportive family here in Miami, and a strong record 

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 8 of 9
9

of compliance with his existing state bond. The Government cannot meet its burden 

and Mr. Mitchell should be released subject to a bond with conditions similar to his 

state bond.

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL CARUSO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

By:

s/ Andrew S. Jacobs

Andrew S. Jacobs

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Florida Special Bar No. A5502687

150 W. Flagler St., Ste. 1700

Miami, FL 33130

305-533-4201

Andrew_Jacobs@fd.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on July 30, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via e-mail:

AUSA Carin Duryee (Carin.Duryee@usdoj.gov)

DOJ Trial Attorney AeJean Cha (AeJean.Cha@usdoj.gov)

By: /s/ Andrew S. Jacobs 

 Andrew S. Jacobs

Case 1:22-mj-03273-MD Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2022 Page 9 of 9