1

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

BRIAN J. STRETCH (CABN 163973)

United States Attorney

BARBARA J. VALLIERE (DCBN 439353)

Chief, Criminal Division

DAMALI A. TAYLOR (CABN 262489)

WILLIAM FRENTZEN (LABN 24421)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6401

FAX: (415) 436-6753

damali.taylor@usdoj.gov; william.frentzen@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARCUS ETIENNE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 16-71663

MEMORANDUM BY THE UNITED STATES IN 

FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE DETENTION OF 

MARCUS ETIENNE

Hearing date: February 1, 2017

INTRODUCTION

This is no ordinary marijuana conspiracy case. As the Complaint describes, it is a multi-district 

marijuana conspiracy that resulted in the murders of two of the defendant’s co-conspirators. The 

evidence—some of which was shared with the Court during the defendant’s detention hearing—

implicates the defendant in these homicides. Not only is the defendant facing a five-year mandatory 

minimum sentence in this case, he is also aware that he is under investigation for those homicides. In 

short, he has strong incentive to flee and the financial means to accomplish it. As if that were not 

sufficient, the defendant has a long history of violating court orders. Given the facts and circumstances 

of this case—as further described below—it is no surprise that Pretrial Services Offices in two different 

districts have recommended that the defendant be detained.

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 5
2

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

There is ample reason for the Court to find that, by clear and convincing evidence, no condition 

or combination of conditions in 18 U.S.C. ' 3142(c) will reasonably assure the safety of any other 

person and the community. See 18 U.S.C. '' 3142(e) and (f); United States v. Motamedi, 767 F.2d 

1403, 1406 (9th Cir. 1985). The Court should also find by a preponderance of the evidence that no 

condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the defendant’s presence in court. Id. 

ARGUMENT 

The Defendant Poses an Incredible Risk of Flight.

The defendant has a criminal history that is replete with failures to appear. In reviewing his 

criminal history, undersigned counsel counted nine separate failures to appear/bench warrants/fugitive 

warrants. As if that were not bad enough, he also has a conviction for committing a battery on a police 

officer. See Exhibit A. His conviction history also includes multiple violations of probation, as well as 

felony convictions for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Some of these convictions overlap. 

Moreover, the defendant has ready access to huge amounts of capital and he has strong incentive to flee. 

A review of a drug ledger, located at the found during a May 2016 search executed at the defendant’s 

home—and confirmed by his co-defendant as a drug ledger of money owed to the defendant—shows 

that multiple individuals owe and/or have already paid the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in 

connection with this marijuana conspiracy, furthering the defendant’s access to funds which could aid in 

his flight. A review of defendant’s flight records also shows consistent travel throughout the United 

States. The defendant has not and cannot explain how a halfway house environment—an environment 

everyone agrees he can simply walk away from—could mitigate this risk.

The Defendant is a Danger to the Community.

In addition to the defendant’s history of flouting court orders, this Court should be concerned by

the fact that the defendant is under investigation for two different homicides—murders of his coconspirators in the very conspiracy charged in this case. With respect to the March 2016 murder of his 

co-conspirator Thibodeaux in Oakland, CA, flight records indicate that the defendant flew to the bay 

area with Thibodeaux and flew back right before the murder. This is consistent with the statement that 

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 5
3

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

soon-to-be murder victim Rodney Savoy gave to law enforcement after Thibodeaux’s murder. Savoy

made clear to law enforcement that he believed this defendant was responsible for Thibodeaux’s

murder—not as the shooter, but the one who directed it.1 Savoy described uncharged co-defendant 

Mario Robinson as one of the defendant’s enforcers. Savoy himself was murdered 5 months later in the 

area of defendant’s hometown near Opelousas, Louisiana. When law enforcement questioned the 

defendant about Savoy’s homicide at the time of his arrest, the defendant admitted that Savoy owed the 

defendant money when he was killed. The murder weapon has not been found concerning either 

homicide.

In the weeks before he was arrested in this case and had evidence destroyed (as discussed 

below), the defendant was arrested for threatening to kill his sister-in-law. He told her “that he was 

going to kill her, and put a bullet through her head.” See Exhibit B. She was clear that she did not feel 

safe and was afraid of what the defendant would do to her. Id. This is the same sister-in-law whose 

home the defendant ordered another co-conspirator (Craig Marshall) to burglarize just last month.

The Defendant Has Already Obstructed Justice.

On December 14, 2016—the day after he was arrested in the instant case, the defendant placed 

multiple phone calls trying to reach Craig Marshall to get him to conceal evidence. Marshall is an 

uncharged co-conspirator in the charged marijuana conspiracy. The defendant’s phone calls to 

Marshall—made from a Louisiana jail—were recorded. In these calls, the defendant and Marshall (as 

well as another unknown male) discussed the search that law enforcement conducted at the time of the 

defendant’s arrest, which occurred in Carencro, LA. Marshall told the defendant that he and the 

defendant’s other cronies had been driving back and forth watching as law enforcement executed the 

warrant in Carencro, LA, which is the residence that Etienne was observed leaving prior to his arrest.

The two discussed the fact law enforcement didn’t find anything during the search. Law enforcement 

did not locate evidence concerning the aforementioned murders during the search warrant at the 

 1 The investigation into those murders is ongoing. As a result, undersigned counsel simply cannot 

disclose all of the information we have concerning these murders without jeopardizing the investigation, 

potential evidence and potential witnesses. Nor should the government have to, given the record before 

the Court and this defendant’s history. There is more than enough to support his detention.

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 5
4

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

Carencro, LA residence. 

Very quickly into their conversation, the defendant instructed Marshall to break into his motherin-law’s home to retrieve a Nike shoe box from the residence. In a later call, the defendant confirmed 

that Marshall and/or other individual(s) went to get “the stuff.” Not surprisingly, the defendant’s 

mother-in-law and sister-in-law later spoke with the Sheriff’s Office and reported that there was a breakin at the residence. When police arrived, they observed that someone had used a tool to pry open a 

window; the window screen was on the floor. The defendant’s mother-in-law provided police with 

consent to search the residence. The defendant’s sister-in-law told police that she had observed a 

vehicle “continuously passing in front of the residence...at a very slow pace and routinely stop.” See

Exhibit B, filed under seal herewith. She “assumed that the occupants of the vehicle are the individuals 

responsible for breaking into the residence.” Id. She also noted that the home had never been 

burglarized before. In sum, the home was burglarized on the very evening that the defendant directed a 

co-conspirator(s) to go there to retrieve a shoebox. Nothing was reported stolen from the residence, 

however, if a shoebox that Etienne described had been there, it was gone when law enforcement 

searched the house after the burglary. 

A Halfway House Does Nothing to Mitigate these Risks.

The government is troubled by the Court’s inclination to place the defendant in a halfway house. 

There is nothing whatsoever preventing a defendant from simply walking out of a halfway house. There 

are no locks on the doors, and no armed guards. In Fulgham, Judge Westmore recognized the wellknown, irrefutable fact in denying a similar motion. 2012 WL 2792439, at *5 (“Defendant suggested 

that he live in a halfway house, but that is not a viable option because he could walk away from a 

halfway house at any time.”). During the detention hearing, the Court remarked that it is possible for the 

defendant to order a homicide from jail. However, as the Court is aware, jail calls are recorded and 

monitored. Ordering a homicide on a jail call would make Etienne both incredibly stupid and incredibly 

brazen. By contrast, calls made from a halfway house are free from scrutiny. Placing defendant 

Etienne, a.k.a., “Hitler” in an unfettered halfway house environment would be a boon for him. The 

government’s fears are neither speculative nor unwarranted. This man is being investigated for two 

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/30/17 Page 4 of 5
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

homicides. The government does not believe that he is finished. 

All of the following remains unchanged: 1) Pretrial Services in two districts recommended that 

the defendant be detained; 2) The defendant has numerous bench warrants for failure to appear; 3) the 

defendant was convicted for battery on a police officer; 4) the defendant knows that he is being 

investigated for murdering his co-conspirators (crimes for which he would face life); 5) the defendant is 

currently facing a mandatory minimum imprisonment of five years; 6) the defendant has already 

directed a co-conspirator(s) to destroy evidence from county jail, thereby obstructing justice; and 7) the 

defendant is free to simply walk away from a halfway house. It is inconceivable how releasing 

defendant Etienne to a halfway house could mitigate the risks he poses and no one has even tried to 

establish how a halfway house could possibly hold him. 

CONCLUSION

For all of the above reasons, the government respectfully requests that defendant Etienne be 

detained for the safety of the community and because he is a demonstrated risk of flight.

Dated: January 29, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN J. STRETCH

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: ______/s/___________________________

Damali Taylor

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:17-cr-00093-WHA Document 15 Filed 01/30/17 Page 5 of 5