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

27

28

Detention Order

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY L. JACKSON,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5060FDB

DETENTION ORDER

INITIAL DETENTION HEARING: The government initially filed a Motion for Detention (Dkt. #5)

requesting detention based on risk of flight, risk of obstruction of justice, and safety of any other person

and the community. The undersigned held an initial detention hearing in this matter on January 31, 2006. 

At that initial hearing the court heard from counsel, the Pre-trial Services Officer and two witnesses who

appeared on behalf of the defendant. One of the defense witnesses told the undersigned that he spoke with

the defendant about making threatening statements at his place of employment and stated that he told Mr.

Jackson that he could not do that. At the initial hearing, the government alleged that the defendant made

threats against his employer which resulted in the defendant being terminated from his employment and the

employer filing a police report with the Olympia police. The government also referenced a prior domestic

violence incident in which the defendant allegedly made a threat against his girlfriend. 

After conducting the hearing and considering all the evidence, the undersigned released the

defendant on an Appearance Bond subject to special conditions, which included electronic home

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 31 Filed 02/15/06 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

27

28

Detention Order

Page - 2

monitoring (EHM). Due to the imposition of EHM, the Appearance Bond (Dkt. #9) included a

requirement that Pretrial Services coordinate the defendant’s release with the U.S. Marshals. Mr. Jackson

was scheduled to be released from the Federal Detention Center on February 2, 2006. 

The following standard condition was included in the Appearance Bond: 

I must not harass, threaten, intimidate, tamper with, improperly influence, or injure the

person or property of witnesses, jurors, informants, victims of crime, judicial officers, or

other persons related to the official proceedings before the court, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1502, 1512, and 1513. 

Mr. Jackson signed the Appearance Bond on January 31, 2006.

BACKGROUND TO SECOND DETENTION HEARING: On February 6, 2006, AUSA Annette L.

Hayes and AUSA Patricia C. Lally filed the Government’s Motion to Reopen Defendant’s Detention

Hearing (Dkt. #15, which was later amended to correct a date, Dkt. #24) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3142(f)(2)(B). 

On February 7, 2006 Pre-Trial Services Officer Jennifer R. Bennett presented to U.S. Magistrate

Judge Arnold a Petition for Warrant for Defendant Under Pretrial Services Supervision which alleged

violation of that portion of the Appearance Bond cited above. Magistrate Judge Arnold authorized the

issuance of a summons. 

On February 8, 2006 a motion to withdraw as counsel was filed on behalf of Mr. Jackson’s then

attorney, Colin Fieman. (Dkt. #22). 

Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold held a hearing on Friday, February 10, 2006. The Court

authorized Colin Fieman to withdraw as attorney for the defendant and Zenon Olbertz was substituted as

defense counsel. In addition, the defendant was advised of the violation alleged by Pre-Trial Services. It is

this Court’s understanding that Mr. Olbertz objected to the re-opening of a detention hearing. It was also

at that hearing that the defendant advised Magistrate Judge Arnold that there was another Gary Jackson at

the Federal Detention Center. In order to clarify the situation as to who said what, Magistrate Judge

Arnold scheduled a detention hearing before the undersigned for Tuesday, February 14, 2006. 

At the hearing before the undersigned, held on February 14, 2006, Mr. Olbertz conceded that

Magistrate Judge Arnold had concluded that the government did have the right to re-open the detention

hearing. With that being the case, this court conducted a detention hearing based on the government’s

motion to re-open. The undersigned also notes that 18 U.S.C. §3142(f)(2)(B) allows for reopening of a

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 31 Filed 02/15/06 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

27

28

Detention Order

Page - 3

detention hearing based on new information.

DETENTION HEARING OF FEBRUARY 14, 2006: The undersigned conducted a second detention

hearing on February 14, 2006. The government presented the testimony of Alexander Stasny, a

corrections officer at the SeaTac Federal Detention Center. Mr. Olbertz made a proffer of testimony.

Based on the testimony presented to the court and after hearing argument from counsel, the

undersigned finds that on February 2, 2006 at approximately 1:47 a.m. the defendant told Officer Stasney

that his lawyer “better get him off.” Officer Stasny asked the defendant, “if not?” The defendant

responded “well he has a family.” The defendant went on to make statements to the effect that if he (the

attorney) doesn’t, he can get body parts sent to his family. Officer Stasny told the defendant that those

were serious accusations. Officer Stasny followed protocol and memorialized the defendants statements

shortly after they were made through a report on the IMS (Inmate Monitoring System). This report was

ultimately reviewed by the special investigation unit. The information was provided to the AUSA’s who in

turn advised the Federal Public Defender. 

The above referenced conversation occurred between the guard and Mr. Jackson while the

defendant was in his cell and while he was making eye contact with the guard. Mr. Jackson was housed in

a lock down unit and his one cell mate was also present. 

There was a Gary Evans Jackson in the detention center on February 2, 2006, but he was housed

10 to 15 cells away from the defendant, is a white male in his 60's who wears glasses and has a beard. The

defendant is a black male, age 35, who does not wear glasses and does not have a beard. There is no

doubt that the statements testified to by Officer Stansy were made by this defendant, Gary Lee Jackson.

Officer Stansy had the personal opinion that the defendant was talking tough and making empty

accusations. He reached this conclusion based on the defendant’s cell mate. However, he followed

protocol and reported the threat. Officer Stansy had little prior contact with the defendant, did not know

the nature or type of federal charges filed against the defendant, and had no knowledge about any prior

criminal history or allegations of violence. 

Following the initial hearing before Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold, the defendant was detained

pending the February 14th hearing. The defendant saw Officer Stansy at the Federal Detention Center on

February 11, 2006. The defendant told Officer Stansy “because of you I am here and I will see you

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 31 Filed 02/15/06 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

27

28

Detention Order

Page - 4

Tuesday in court.” At that time the defendant also told the Officer that he was referring to a movie and

that he did not mean to say it like that. 

By way of proffer through Mr. Olbertz, Mr. Fieman would have testified that he received a voice

message, made after the February 2, 2006 1:47 a.m. conversation, from Mr. Jackson thanking Mr. Fieman

for getting him released to electronic home monitoring. In addition, Mr. Fieman never felt personally

threatened or intimidated by Mr. Jackson nor did Mr. Jackson ever threaten Mr. Fieman in person.

CONCLUSIONS: This Court finds that Gary Lee Jackson threatened his attorney, Colin Fieman, on

February 2, 2006 through the statements he made to Officer Stansy. This threat violated a condition of his

Appearance Bond as Colin Fieman is clearly a “person related to the official proceedings before the

Court.” 

This court further finds that the defendant intentionally mislead U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley

Arnold when he suggested that there was another Gary Jackson housed at the Federal Detention Center

and suggested that the statements may have been made by him. That was not the position taken at the

hearing on February 14th and the statements were clearly and unequivocally made by the defendant, Gary

Lee Jackson. 

At Mr. Jackson’s first detention hearing, two of his prior co-workers appeared on his behalf. One

of the co-workers advised the court that Mr. Jackson had made threats against his then employer and the

co-worker told him he could not say things like that. Yet, only two days following the first detention

hearing the defendant made a clear threat against his attorney. The information before the court shows that

the defendant has a history of making threats. The federal charge pending against Mr. Jackson is False

Communication Regarding a Tainted Consumer Product. This charge is based on false statements

allegedly made by the defendant which suggested “that arsenic was being placed inside Pepsi cans by

employees of Crown, Cork and Seal, Inc.” (See Indictment, Dkt. #11). Crown, Cork and Seal was Mr.

Jackson’s prior employer. 

This Court finds that the community would not be safe if the defendant was not detained pending

resolution of the underlying charge. He intentionally mislead the court, he threatened his attorney who did

an excellent job representing him at the first detention hearing, he had been previously warned about

making threatening comments and he faces a federal charge based on statements he allegedly made. The

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 31 Filed 02/15/06 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

27

28

Detention Order

Page - 5

only way the court can be certain that the defendant will do no harm is to have him detained. The court

therefore finds that no condition or combination of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably

assure the safety of any other person and the community.

 ORDER OF DETENTION 

The defendant shall be 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. The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private

consultation with counsel. The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the Government, be delivered to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in

connection with a court proceeding. 

DATED this 15th day of February, 2006.

 /s/ Karen L. Strombom 

Karen L. Strombom

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:06-cr-05060-FDB Document 31 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 5