UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 

v. 

 

MARCUS JENKINS 

 Case No. 2:15-CR-39-JVB 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Mr. Jenkins moved for review of the detention order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145. (DE 

96.) 

A. Procedural posture

 Mr. Jenkins was arrested on July 1, 2015. Magistrate Judge Rodovich held a hearing on 

July 7, 2015, regarding detention. 

 Judge Rodovich noted that Mr. Jenkins faced a charge of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Judge Rodovich also noted Mr. Jenkins’s 

involvement in gang activity, failures to appear in court more than seven times in other cases, 

criminal history, and non-compliance with probation. 

 Judge Rodovich found that no conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the 

Defendant and the safety of the community, and ordered the Defendant to be held without bond. 

(Detention Order, DE 8 at 3–4.) 

 On July 15, 2015, the Grand Jury returned a superseding indictment charging Mr. Jenkins 

with murder in aid of racketeering, use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence 

resulting in death, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. 

 On January 11, 2016, Mr. Jenkins moved for review of the detention order. (DE 53.) 
2 

 Magistrate Judge Martin held a hearing on February 12, 2016, and ordered the prior 

detention order to remain in effect.1

 (DE 60.) 

B. Pending motion for review of detention order

 On January 30, 2017, Mr. Jenkins moved again for review of the detention order. (DE 

96). Mr. Jenkins notes multiple trial continuances. He acknowledges his criminal record, but 

argues that he has only one felony conviction and it is not for a crime of violence. He argues that 

he hasn’t been a member of the Vice Lords since late 2014, and that the racketeering activity 

involved in the superseding indictment involves a different gang, the Two-Six Nation. He argues 

he never belonged to Two-Six. He acknowledges his history of failures to appear at court 

proceedings, but argues these failures related to traffic violations. He argues the Court should 

consider his additional period of incarceration. He argues that the evidence supporting his 

detention is “extremely weak” and does not show he would be a danger to the community. He 

argues that his continued incarceration limits his ability to consult with counsel and otherwise 

assist in his defense. 

                                                            

1

 Judge Martin was added to this case on April 17, 2015. The government then filed its criminal 

complaint against Mr. Jenkins on June 29, 2015. Judge Rodovich presided over Mr. Jenkins’s 

initial appearance on July 1, 2015, and his probable cause/detention hearing on July 7, 2015. 

Judge Rodovich entered a detention order on July 8, 2015. Judge Martin presided over Mr. 

Jenkins’s arraignment on July 20, 2015, and his bond review hearing on February 12, 2016. 
3 

C. Legal standards

 Per 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), “[i]f a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge . . . the 

person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for 

revocation or amendment of the order.” 

A district court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s detention order is de novo. 

United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 761 (7th Cir. 1985). A district court may review a 

magistrate’s detention order without holding a new hearing. See United States v. Bergner, 800 F. 

Supp. 659 (N.D. Ind. 1992). “An evidentiary hearing is necessary only if the party requesting the 

hearing raises a significant disputed factual issue.” United States v. Sophie, 900 F.2d 1064, 1070 

(7th Cir. 1990). 

A district court may review the magistrate judge’s decision by reviewing the transcript of 

the magistrate judge’s hearing or by holding a new hearing. United States v. Torres, 929 F.2d 

291, 292 (7th Cir. 1991). 

On the basis of the arguments in the briefs, the Court exercises its discretion and declines 

to hold yet another hearing. Instead, the Court conducted a de novo review of the transcripts of 

the hearings held on July 7, 2015, and February 12, 2016; the detention order entered July 8, 

2015; the docket entry on February 12, 2016; and the briefs and other relevant documents. 

D. Discussion 

 During Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s hearing on July 7, 2015, Mr. Jenkins contested 

detention. By way of proffer, the government argued that evidence would show that Defendant 

admitted to being a member of the Vice Lords, and that he also associated with Two-Six. (DE 84 
4 

at 2.) The government noted the potential for an indictment against Defendant for the murder of 

Kemond Coleman. (Id. at 3.) The government also noted eight prior failures to appear for court 

proceedings, and argued “[i]f he’s failing to appear on such minor charges, he’s certainly going 

to fail to appear on a Federal gun charge.” (Id. at 4–5.) The government argued Mr. Jenkins was 

a flight risk and a danger to the community. (Id. at 5.) 

 Mr. Jenkins argued that his failures to appear related to traffic violations. (Id. at 3.) He 

also argued that he had obligations to his daughter, and could work and attend school. (Id. at 3–

4.) He argued that electronic monitoring could mitigate any flight risk. (Id. at 5.) 

 Judge Rodovich held that given Defendant’s extensive criminal record, his failures to 

appear, multiple petitions to revoke his felony probation for burglary, and all the circumstances, 

the probation department would not be able to effectively monitor Defendant if released on bond. 

(Id. at 84.) Judge Rodovich ordered Defendant held without bond pending trial. (Id.) 

 A written order entered the following day documented Judge Rodovich’s finding that no 

conditions would reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant and the safety of the 

community. (Detention Order, DE 8 at 3.) 

 At the hearing on February 12, 2016, Judge Martin noted that Mr. Jenkins challenged the 

detention essentially on two grounds: the extended time before trial given a continuance and 

defense counsel’s contention following review of discovery that the case against Defendant is 

not as strong as the indictment might indicate. (DE 86 at 3–4.) Defendant accepted this 

formulation of the grounds. (Id. at 4.) 

 Defendant argued that a continuance had extended the period of his pre-trial 

incarceration. (Id. at 5.) Defendant made arguments distancing himself from gangs. (Id. at 6.) 
5 

Defendant made arguments challenging the evidence against him. (Id. at 6–8.) The government 

responded that at least two witnesses place Defendant at the scene during the homicide. (Id. at 8.) 

The government also noted that Defendant gave conflicting statements to the police regarding his 

location during the homicide. (Id. at 8–9.) The government again noted Defendant’s significant 

criminal history, extensive history of substance abuse, non-compliance with probation, and many 

failures-to-appear. (Id. at 10–11.) 

 After hearing further arguments, Judge Martin decided not to disturb the detention order. 

(Id. at 13.) He noted that this is a presumption case that carries a potential life sentence. (Id. at 

14.) 

 Now, in the pending motion for review, Defendant again argues that his continued pretrial incarceration, the weakness of the evidence against him, and his difficulties in assisting in 

his defense due to his continued incarceration weigh in favor of his release. 

E. Conclusion 

 Having conducted a de novo review of the pertinent materials, and reconsidered the 

arguments, the Court finds ample reasons not to release Mr. Jenkins at this time, especially in 

light of the presumption created by 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(B). 

He is charged with murder in aid of racketeering and with offenses involving the use or 

possession of a firearm, he has an extensive criminal record, he has a history of failing to appear 

for court proceedings, and he faces a potential sentence of life imprisonment. 
6 

 For these reasons, and for further reasons stated in the government’s response (DE 101), 

the Court concludes that no conditions of release would reasonably assure the appearance of 

Defendant and the safety of the community. 

 The Court DENIES the motion for review of detention order in all respects. (DE 96.) Mr. 

Jenkins will remain in custody, without bond. 

SO ORDERED on February 23, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE