1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-076-01-PB

Lawrence Stone

O R D E R

On June 30, 2011, defendant appeared for a preliminary 

hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on two alleged violations of 

conditions of supervision, as charged in the government's 

petition dated June 30, 2011 (doc. no. 53). Defendant is on 

release from his conviction in 2008 for Interstate 

Transportation of Stolen Property.

The government alleges that, while on supervised release, 

defendant violated the conditions of his release by committing 

the crime of illegal possession and use of a controlled 

substance (Standard Condition #1) and being unsuccessfully 

discharged from Hampshire House (special condition requiring

defendant to remain at Hampshire House for six months following 

release from prison). After a hearing, at which Paul Daniel, 

U.S Probation Officer, testified for the government, this court 

issued an order orally from the bench finding that the 

Case 1:06-cr-00076-PB Document 60 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 4
2

government's evidence established probable cause that defendant 

violated the conditions as charged in the petition. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). The 

government sought detention. Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), defendant 

bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing 

evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no danger to 

any other person or to the community. Based on the evidence 

presented at the hearing, and for the reasons stated on the 

record, defendant failed to meet his burden of persuading the 

court that he poses no danger to any other person or to the 

community. 

The court stated on the record its reasons for detaining 

defendant. Those reasons are summarized below:

While the court finds that defendant met the burden of 

proof on the question of flight risk, the question of 

danger is a closer question. Ultimately, the court 

finds that defendant did not meet his high burden of 

proof on this prong.

Defendant's extensive criminal record coupled with the 

fact that he obtained and consumed illegal drugs so 

quickly following his release from his 96-month 

sentence (defendant was released in late April and 

Case 1:06-cr-00076-PB Document 60 Filed 07/01/11 Page 2 of 4
3

consumed marijuana within two months thereafter) 

causes the court great concern.

Additionally, the evidence showed that defendant 

admitted his drug use only after being confronted by a 

staff member of Hampshire House after a positive 

urinalysis. Defendant did not disclose his relapse 

during his drug counseling sessions or otherwise seek 

help from others. The Hampshire House staff found 

that defendant lacked remorse and had a nonchalant 

attitude toward the issue. They also had difficulty 

in getting defendant to comply with basic house rules. 

It was for all of these reasons that Hampshire House 

decided to discharge defendant.

For these reasons, the court is not persuaded by clear 

and convincing evidence that this defendant would 

abide by the strict bail conditions the court would 

impose were it to release the defendant. In light of 

defendant's criminal history, the risk of danger to 

the public is too great. 

For all of these reasons the court finds that defendant did 

not meet his burden to show by clear and convincing evidence 

that his release, even on strict conditions, would pose no 

Case 1:06-cr-00076-PB Document 60 Filed 07/01/11 Page 3 of 4
4

danger to any other person or the community. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the defendant be detained pending a final 

revocation hearing. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

 

Landya B. McCafferty

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 1, 2011

 

cc: Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.

Arnold H. Huftalen, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00076-PB Document 60 Filed 07/01/11 Page 4 of 4