In January 1998, the Illinois Appellate Court vacated Wilson’s murder sentence of natural life.
Wilson thereafter pled guilty to second degree murder and received a sentence of 22 years.

The Government presented evidence at the bond hearing that after being released from

prison in 1998, Wilson assumed the position of “Don” for his street gang, the Gangster Disciples.
As a “Don,” Wilson was the highest ranking member of the Gangster Disciples at the Cabrini
Green Public Housing Complex (“Cabrini Green’’) on Chicago’s near North-West side.
According to the Chicago police, Wilson “has a well organized and sophisticated drug
distribution and security system in place at Cabrini Green.” This drug operation allegedly
operates 24 hours a day and nets substantial profits for the gang and Wilson.

Based on the above evidence, this Court finds that the factors set forth in section 4142(g)
weigh against releasing Wilson on bond pending trial, and therefore, the Court finds that the
Government has shown by clear and convincing evidence that Wilson, if released on bond,
would pose a danger to the community and that no conditions of release would alleviate this
danger.

In denying Wilson’s motion, the Court notes that the majority of testimony presented by
Wilson went to whether he was a flight risk. The Government does not contest that Wilson has
always shown up for all of his court dates. To deny Wilson bond, however, the Government
need only show that Wilson would be a danger to the community or that he would be a flight
risk, not both. See Diaz, 777 F.2d at 1237, To show that he would not pose a threat to the
community, Wilson contends that the Court could order Wilson confined to his mother-in-law’s

home and appoint the mother-in-law as his custodian. While the mother-in-law testified that she

4.


this Court finds that the first factor in the section 3142(g) analysis, “the nature and circumstances
of the offense charged,” weigh towards denying Wilson’s rclease on bond, Moreover, the
firearm which Wilson is accused of possessing is not your typical handgun. The gun recovered
from Wilson’s vehicle was a M-11 9 millimeter semi-automatic pistol with a 30 round clip.

Next, the weight of the evidence against Wilson appears extremely strong. The present
charges came about after Chicago police officers stopped Wilson for allegedly violating several
traffic laws and saw a firearm in plain view sticking out from under the front passenger seat. As
in most criminal cases, Wilson’s account of the arrest differed from that of the police, and
Wilson filed a motion to suppress the firearm. After holding a hearing on the motion to suppress,
this Court denied the motion and the firearm will be admitted into evidence at trial. Accordingly,
the Court finds that the weight of evidence against Wilson (the second section 3142(g) factor)
favors denying his motion for bond.

As for the third section 3142(g) factor, Wilson’s criminal history, the Court finds that this
factor also supports the denial of the motion. Wilson has an extensive criminal history dating
back to 1971 when he pled guilty to aggravated assault for which he was sentenced to one year in
prison. In 1973, Wilson pled guilty to armed robbery and received a sentence of four years. In
1975, only 18 days after being paroled on the armed robbery conviction, Wilson was charged
with murder for allegedly killing a man with a sawed-off shot gun. Wilson was subsequently
found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 4 to 20 years. In 1981, Wilson was
convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to natural life. While in

prison, in 1993, Wilson pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in a penal institution.


would undertake these responsibilities, the Court finds that, although sincere, she would not be

able 1o prevent Wilson from engaging in criminal activity while out on bond.

5.


Minute Crder Fare (067)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

mi i Sitting Judge if Other
Na ee Magee Todos Blanche M. Manning ha nite ‘Jude
CASE NUMBER 01 CR 847 DATE July 16, 2002
CASE United States v. Earnest Wilson
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the

MOTION: nature of the motion being presented. |

DOCKET ENTRY;

qa) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) i) Brief in support of motion due

3) oO Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due__

(4) G Ruling/Heating onset for at

(5) im) Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forJon set for aat_

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at.
(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for} on at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at _t

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

QO FRCP4(m) =O General Rule21 O FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) Mf [Other docket entry) For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court
DENIES Defendant Earnest Wilson’s Motion for Bond. It is so ordered.

(11) x [For further detail see order @Ztere dz ye" ‘the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required.

ov | Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

Have mailed notice

courtroom
RIS deputy’s. ~ ast Aan

initials OF 04-04
Date/time received in
central Clerk's Office mallng deputy iis



CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant Earnest Wilson’s Motion for

Bond. It is so ordered.

ENTER: Blanele Mh. Menno

BLANCHE M, MANNING /
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

DATE:,_JUL_1 6 2002


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
) Hon. Blanche M, Manning
vy )
) 01 CR 847 Os ~
EARNEST WILSON ) Op ePe
) My “EY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER * typ

The Government indicted Defendant Eamest Wilson on charges that he violated 18
U.S.C. § 922(g) and (k), alleging that he, as a convicted felon, knowingly possessed two
handguns, one of which had the serial numbers removed and/or altered. The present matter
comes before the court on Wilson’s Motion for Bond, which, as explained below, is DENIED.

Under the Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. § 3142), a defendant may be detained pending trial
when the government is able to establish by clear and convincing evidence either that the person
presents a scrious risk of flight or a serious risk of danger to another person or the community.
United States v. Diaz, 777 F.2d 1236, 1237 (7th Cir. 1985), Section 3142(e) explicitly provides
that the court shall order pre-trial detention if “no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and the safety of any other person and
the community...” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e).

In determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the
appearance of the person as required and the safety of the community, the court must consider the
following factors set forth in section 3142(g):

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense
is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;


(2) the weight of the evidence against the person;

(3) the history and characteristics of the person, including—
(A) the person's character, his physical and mental condition, 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 at court proceedings; and
(B) whether, at the time of the current offense or arrest, the person was on
probation, on parole, or on other release pending trial, sentencing, appeal, or

completion of sentence for an offense under Federal, State, or local law; and

(4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would
be posed by the person's release.

8 U.S.C. § 3142(g). All of these factors must be balanced in making the ultimate determination
of whether a defendant should be released on bond. See Diaz, 777 F.2d at 1238 (ultimate
decision whether to detain “depends both on personal observation of the defendant and on a
weighing of the daunting list of factors in section 3142(g)”).

Here, the Government contends that Wilson poses a danger to the community and that no
possible conditions of release will Icssen this danger. To assess this contention, the Court held a
hearing on Wilson’s motion for bond.

Initially, the Court notes that Wilson is charged with being a felon in possession of a
firearm, which is considered a “serious” offense. United States v. Henry, 935 F. Supp. 24, 25

(D.D.C, 1996) (holding that defendant who was charged as a felon in possession of a fircarm was

a danger to the community). Sec also 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (“felons in possession of firearms are a
threat to the safety of society”), Where the defendant has committed a scrious crime, “the natural
conclusion is that the individual poses . . , a danger to the community. United States v. Patel, No.

95 CR 190-1, 1995 WL 557379, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 1995) (Williams, J.). Consequently,

-2-