UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 07-cr-017-01-PB

Yvonne Thrasher

O R D E R

On March 26, 2012, defendant appeared for a bail revocation 

hearing. At a previous bail hearing, on March 16, 2012, the 

court ordered defendant’s detention until she could be released 

directly into Angie’s Place, with a further hearing to be held 

upon the “completion or discharge of defendant from the 

program.” As a condition of her release to Angie’s Place,

defendant was required to comply with all the rules and 

regulations of that program. Defendant was discharged from 

Angie’s Place on March 23, 2012, for violating the program’s 

curfew. Defendant’s discharge forms the basis of the instant 

notice of bail violation. Although the court resolved the bail 

violation in defendant’s favor, a further bail hearing was 

necessary as a result of defendant’s discharge from the program. 

Following that bail hearing, the court ordered the defendant’s 

detention. 

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 69 Filed 03/27/12 Page 1 of 4
2

The court issued its findings and rulings orally 

from the bench and incorporates those herein. What follows is 

merely a summary of those findings and rulings. 

1. Hearing on bail revocation 

At the March 26, 2012, hearing, the court first resolved 

the government’s request for bail revocation pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. § 3148. Officer Paul Daniel testified for the government 

and was cross-examined by defense counsel. The court found that 

the government did not prove by clear and convincing evidence 

that defendant violated a condition of her release. See 18 

U.S.C. § 3148(b)(1)(B) (burden on government to show bail 

violation by clear and convincing evidence). The government 

argued that, on the evening of March 23, 2012, defendant 

violated an 11:00 p.m. curfew by appearing in the residence at 

11:02 p.m. Defendant disputed that she was two minutes late. 

The evidence was not clear and convincing on this discrepancy. 

Accordingly, the court dismissed the notice of bail violation.

2. Further bail hearing

The court’s ruling on the § 3148 issue did not end the 

matter. Pursuant to the March 16 bail order, the court ordered 

that a further bail hearing would occur upon defendant’s 

discharge from Angie’s Place. Defendant conceded she had been 

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 69 Filed 03/27/12 Page 2 of 4
3

discharged from Angie’s Place. Accordingly, a further bail 

hearing was held. The government sought detention; defendant 

sought release. As defendant’s underlying charge is a violation 

of supervised release, Rule 32.1(a)(6) places the burden on her

to prove that she will not flee or pose a danger to the 

community. Defendant’s discharge from Angie’s Place, which 

occurred on her first day as a resident, is defendant’s third 

discharge from a treatment program while under this court’s 

supervision. Defendant was aware that her recent release from 

incarceration was dependent upon her compliance with the rules 

and regulations of Angie’s Place. Before she had spent one 

night at the program, however, defendant decided to flout the 

rules by arriving either at the moment of her curfew, or minutes 

later. The evidence showed that a staff member at Angie’s Place 

had requested defendant to check-in at 10:50 p.m., in advance of 

the 11:00 p.m. curfew. Not only was defendant deemed late for 

curfew, but the Angie’s Place staff member wrote in defendant’s 

incident report that defendant “appeared to be high.” In short, 

defendant failed to meet her burden of showing by clear and 

convincing evidence that her release posed no danger to the 

community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 69 Filed 03/27/12 Page 3 of 4
4

General or her 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: March 27, 2012

cc: Matthew Stachowske, Esq.

Robert Veiga, Esq.

U.S. Probation

U.S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 69 Filed 03/27/12 Page 4 of 4