IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 EASTERN DIVISION

United States of America, :

 

Plaintiff, :

 

v. : Case No. 2:11-mj-0194 

 

Troy Laron McKnight , : Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendant. :

 

 DETENTION ORDER

The defendant, Troy Laron McKnight, accompanied by counsel,

appeared for a detention hearing on March 14, 2011. After the

hearing, the Court decided that the defendant should be detained

pending further proceedings. This order explains why.

On March 1, 2011, a grand jury sitting in the Southern

District of West Virginia returned an indictment charging Mr.

McKnight with five counts of trafficking in crack cocaine and one

count of being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. 

This indictment carries with it a presumption that the defendant

should be detained without bond, explained as follows.

Legal Standard Applicable. The United States' request

for detention is based primarily upon the presumption that

arises under 18 U.S.C. §3142(e) for persons charged with serious

drug offenses, certain firearms offenses, and certain offenses

involving minor victims. That statute states, in pertinent part,

that:

 Subject to rebuttal by the person, it

 shall be presumed that no condition or

 combination of conditions will reasonably

 assure the appearance of the person

 as required and the safety of the

 community if the judicial officer

 finds that there is probable cause to

 believe that the person committed an

 offense for which a maximum term of

 imprisonment of ten years or more is

Case: 2:11-mj-00194-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 prescribed in the Controlled Substances

 Act (2l U.S.C. 801 et seq)...[or] an 

offense under section 924(c)...of this

title... or an offense involving a minor 

 victim [under selected statutes].”

Under 18 U.S.C. §3142(f), if detention is based upon facts

supporting a finding that no condition or combination of

conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person

and the community, such facts must be proved by clear and

convincing evidence. However, if detention is based upon a

finding that no condition or combination of conditions will

reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required, proof

by a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient.

 The proper effect to be given to this rebuttable

presumption is discussed in United States v. Jessup, 757

F.2d 378 (1st Cir. 1985). There, the Court indicated that

the presumption shifts the burden of producing evidence to

the defendants, and also remains in the case even after the

defendants have satisfied their production burden. Further, in a

narcotics case, because the history of the statute indicates that

Congress had in mind a specific set of circumstances relating to

drug offenses which led to the adoption of the rebuttable

presumption, it is appropriate for a Court addressing the

issue of detention to determine how closely the facts of the

case before the Court parallel those of the "Congressional

paradigm," or profile of those drug offenders who present the

most serious risk of flight or danger to the community. That

paradigm, in brief, indicates a Congressional awareness of

the lucrative nature of drug trafficking, and the fact that

many persons engaged in that occupation have substantial ties

outside the United States. Consequently, even if a high

monetary bond is set for such persons, they are able, through

the use of proceeds derived from drug trafficking, to post

-2-

Case: 2:11-mj-00194-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
such bond, and are also able to flee the country because of

their contacts elsewhere.

 In order to attempt to rebut the presumption of detention

arising from charges under the Controlled Substances Act or other

applicable statutes, the defendant need not attempt to prove that

he or she did not commit the crime as charged. Rather, that

burden can be met by introducing evidence of other appropriate

factors as described in 18 U.S.C. §3142(g), including personal

history and characteristics relating to character, 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 in court proceedings. If any such evidence is

introduced, the presumption cannot be used by the Court as

conclusive evidence that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk

to the community or that conditions will not reasonably assure

the defendant’s appearance. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d

702 (7th Cir. 1986). However, that presumption still remains in

the case to be given whatever weight the Court deems appropriate.

According to the Pretrial Services report, Mr. McKnight is a

life-long resident of the Columbus, Ohio area. He had been

living with an aunt for the last seven years (except when he had

been in prison) at an address on Gilbert Avenue. He also has

other family members in Columbus with whom he could reside if he

were released. He has no significant employment history and did

not report any history of substance abuse.

The defendant’s past criminal record is somewhat lengthy and

dates back to 1998. He has numerous felony convictions, some of

which involve narcotics, and at least two convictions for crimes

of violence (assault and attempted robbery). It appears that he

has been arrested or convicted of crimes while on some form of

supervision such as probation or parole. The Pretrial Services

-3-

Case: 2:11-mj-00194-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
officer, citing to all of these facts, recommended detention

without bond.

The defendant’s criminal record indicates a pattern of

criminality for most of defendant’s adult life. The Court is

particularly concerned about the drug-related convictions and the

violent crimes. Further, the indictment represents probable

cause to believe that the defendant traveled to West Virginia on

multiple occasions and committed serious drug offenses while

there. The mandatory penalty for some of those offenses is quite

severe - five to forty years in prison. The indictment also

creates probable cause to believe that the defendant, a convicted

felon, illegally possessed several firearms, which creates a

clear danger to the community.

The defendant’s ties to the Columbus community do not, in

the Court’s view, outweigh both the negative factors contained in

the Pretrial Services report and the presumption of detention

which was created by the indictment. There are simply not enough

positive factors in the report, or otherwise in the record, to

rebut the presumption of detention created by a multi-count

indictment for serious drug offenses. For these reasons, the

Court granted the United States’ motion to detain the defendant

without bond. 

The defendant is advised of his right to seek review of this

order by a United States District Judge pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§3145(b).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

-4-

Case: 2:11-mj-00194-TPK Doc #: 7 Filed: 03/15/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>