UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-mj-026-01

Christopher Aldrich

ORDER OF DETENTION PENDING TRIAL

In accordance with Section 3142(f) of the Bail Reform Act,

18 U.S.C. §§ 3141 et seq., a hearing was conducted on June 16,

2006, for the purpose of determining whether to detain defendant,

Christopher Aldrich, who has been charged in a criminal complaint

with interstate transportation of falsely made, forged, altered

and counterfeit securities. 

Defendant was temporarily detained by Judge DiClerico on

February 28, 2006, and a bail hearing was set for March 6, 2006. 

That hearing was canceled due to a medical emergency involving

defendant’s heart. Thereafter, he was moved to a medical

facility in South Carolina. He now moves for bail conditions

alleging that his health care, or lack thereof, puts him in

imminent danger of a fatal coronary. 

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), a court, in making a

determination regarding detention, must evaluate the risk of the

Case 1:06-mj-00026-JM Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 5
2

defendant’s flight, the risk to the safety of any other person,

and the risk to the safety of the community. In circumstances

when detention is not mandated by the court, the court is

nonetheless empowered to impose conditions on release. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3142(c). 

Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g) a court,

in assessing the risks noted in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), shall

consider the following: (1) the nature and circumstances of the

offense charged; (2) the weight of the evidence as to guilt; 

(3) the history and characteristics of the accused, including

family ties, past history, financial resources and employment;

and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or

the community that would be posed by a release.

During the course of a hearing conducted pursuant to 18

U.S.C. § 3142, the government typically retains the burden of

persuading the court that “‘no condition or combination of

conditions will reasonably assure’ the defendant’s presence at

trial.” United States v. Perez-Franco, 839 F.2d 867, 870 (1st

Cir. 1988)(quoting United States v. Palmer-Contreras, 835 F.2d

15, 17-18 (1st Cir. 1987)); United States v. Patriarca, 948 F.2d

789, 793 (1st Cir. 1991). For its part, the government is

Case 1:06-mj-00026-JM Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 2 of 5
3

required to offer a preponderance of the evidence to prove risk

of flight. See Patriarca, 948 F.2d at 792-93. 

In the case at hand, I have found probable cause to believe

that the offenses charged have been committed and that the

defendant has committed them. 

Here, I find that the government has met its burden with

regard to danger to the community. Specifically, this is not a

rebuttable presumption case but rather involves admitted fraud of

over $3,000,000.00. Defendant admitted fraudulently obtaining

over $1,000,000.00 from each of Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club and Home

Depot. He has no ties to New Hampshire, has been shut off from

social security, is unemployable and has a lifetime history of

felonies (at least eight convictions) and several jail sentences. 

Defendant has serious, life threatening heart problems and other

diseases. He claims he needs strong doses of MS Contin to

function and live and that his incarceration and placement

jeopardize his life. The only credible medical evidence is to

the contrary. MS Contin may have some dilative effect, but as

the doctor testified, it is not routinely prescribed for chronic

heart disease and there are better medicines which have been

prescribed. Defendant is in fact getting medical care adequate

Case 1:06-mj-00026-JM Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 3 of 5
4

to meet constitutional standards. 

I am satisfied from the representations and documents

offered during the hearing that no condition or combination of

conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

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.

______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: June 20, 2006

Case 1:06-mj-00026-JM Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 4 of 5
5

cc: Sven Wiberg, Esq.

 Terry Ollila, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-mj-00026-JM Document 13 Filed 06/20/06 Page 5 of 5