UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 3:14-cr-55-JD

JAMES P. LEDONNE,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RELEASE

On May 14, 2014, a Seventeen Count Indictment was filed against the defendant, James

P. LeDonne, charging him with wire fraud, mail fraud, interstate transportation of stolen vehicle,

and bankruptcy fraud. The defendant had his initial appearance before Magistrate Nuechterlein

on May 19, 2014. At the defendant’s initial appearance on May 19 , the Government moved for th

detention. On May 21 , the Government filed a Memorandum in Support of Pretrial Detention st

[DE9]. The Government alleged that the defendant, Mr. LeDonne, should be detained because

he is a flight risk and his release would be a danger to the community. A detention hearing was

held on May 22 following which Magistrate Nuechterlein ordered the defendant detained. On nd

June 11 , the defendant filed a Motion to Revoke Detention. This Court set a review hearing th

was set for July 16 .

th

In reaching his decision to detain Mr. LeDonne, the Magistrate noted this is an unusual

case “That normally we hear of danger to the community in the case of guns, drugs, and crimes

of violence, that the defendant would be a predator and the safety of the community is at stake.” 

[Tr. p. 68]

The Magistrate recognized that it is a harder case for the Government to make to prove

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 46 filed 07/15/14 page 1 of 4
danger to the community in a financial case. [Tr. p. 68] Indeed, while determining to detain the

defendant, the Magistrate did not find that the defendant was a danger to the community. 

Instead, the Magistrate issued his Order for detention based on his determination that the

defendant could not be trusted to appear in Court. [Tr.p. 71. ll 17-18].

In reaching this decision, the Magistrate found that the 11 to 17 years the defendant could

face, coupled with the strength of the Government’s case, could make the defendant flee. This

conclusion is pure speculation and not supported by the facts presented at the detention hearing.

There are conditions that can be put into place to reasonably assure Mr. LeDonne’s

appearance in Court. It is significant to note in the Pretrial Release Report [DE6], the Probation

Department recommended that the defendant be released pending a ten thousand dollar

($10,000.00) unsecured bond; that the defendant report to the Pretrial Service Officer; that the

defendant’s travel be restricted to the Northern District of Indiana; and that the defendant not

obtain a new passport.

At this stage of the proceedings, under the Constitution, the defendant enjoys the

presumption of innocence. He also has the constitutional right to be released on bail pending his

trial. See Amendment VIII of the U. S. Constitution. The Bail Reform Act provides that the

Court shall order the pretrial release of the defendant on personal recognizance or execution of an

unsecured bond. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b). Generally, a Court must release a defendant on bail on

the least restrictive condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the

defendant’s appearances when required and the safety of the community. See 18 U.S.C. §

1342(c)(1)(B). 

As the Magistrate noted, the Government has the burden to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that the defendant could be a danger to the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(F)(2). In this

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 46 filed 07/15/14 page 2 of 4
case, the Government has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a

danger to the community. In fact, the Magistrate did not find that the defendant was a danger to

the community in this case. 

The Government did not present sufficient proof that the defendant would flee. The only

reference to Mr. LeDonne leaving the area came from the testimony of Indiana State Police

Officer Roy Stuckey. Officer Stuckey said that he had seen e-mails between Mr. LeDonne and

persons in Florida. [Tr. p. 21, ll 12-19] There was no evidence that Mr. LeDonne was presently

intending to leave Indiana or that he had an airline or a bus ticket or had made arrangements to

leave Indiana and go to Florida. Certainly, as a condition of release, this Court can order the

defendant to remain in the Northern District of Indiana which is exactly what the Probation

Department proposed in the Pretrial Release Report. While the defendant has a prior federal

conviction for bank fraud, in that case, the District Court granted the defendant pretrial release. 

And Mr. LeDonne did not leave the area but attended all hearings and eventually entered a plea

to bank fraud and was sentenced to 63 months.

In addition, the Government has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that

the defendant is a flight risk or untrustworthy to appear. There was no evidence the defendant

had failed to appear. The defendant has no intention of leaving the area but intends to

vigorously defend against the charges. Mr. LeDonne has significant ties to this area. He is

married to Stephanie LeDonne and they have five children: Abigal LeDonne, Alec LeDonne,

Alexis LeDonne, Ashton LeDonne, and Ayden LeDonne. The defendant is a life long member of

the Elkhart/South Bend community. He and his wife have a marital residence at 14753 Carrigan

Court, Granger, Indiana. Mr. LeDonne’s father, Anthony LeDonne, lives in Elkhart with Mr.

LeDonne’s brother, Robert LeDonne, and sister, Mary LeDonne. 

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 46 filed 07/15/14 page 3 of 4
In a similar case involving fraud, U.S. v. Madoff, 586 F. Supp. 2d 240 (U.S. Dist. NY),

the District Court for the Southern District of New York released the defendant, the notorious

Bernie Madoff, over the Government’s request that he be detained. The District Court noted that

the defendant, Madoff, has been charged in “perhaps the largest ponzie scheme ever.” Id. at 246. 

The reasoning by the District Court in the Madoff case applies here, and for similar reasons set

out in Madoff, this Court should release the defendant on conditions.

In this case, the defendant should be released on conditions. See 18 U.S.C. §

3142(c)(1)(B). This Court could set as a condition of release that the defendant be monitored by

a GPS device, or remain on home detention, or call into the Probation Department on a daily

basis. This Court could impose a travel restriction to the Northern District of Indiana. This

Court could also further order that the defendant not be involved in his own business ventures,

and that he look for gainful employment.

 /s/ William J. Cohen 

William J. Cohen, #3291-20

Attorney for Defendant

401 West Bristol Street

Elkhart, IN 46514

Telephone: (574) 293-4511

Fax: (574) 522-6281

E-Mail: wcohen@williamjc

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on the 15th day of July, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notice of this filing to all counsel of

record. 

/s/ William J. Cohen 

case 3:14-cr-00055-JD-CAN document 46 filed 07/15/14 page 4 of 4