1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No. 11-MJ-00148-DLW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. EDWIN LEHI, JR.,

 Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND REASONS

FOR ORDER OF DETENTION

______________________________________________________________________________

THIS MATTER came before the Court for a detention hearing on September 20, 2011.

Present were the following: Dondi Osborne, Assistant United States Attorney, Brian K. Schowalter,

counsel for the Defendant, and the Defendant. Also present was Greg Saiz, Pretrial Services Officer.

The Court heard testimony, reviewed the Pretrial Services’ report and heard the arguments of

counsel.

In order to sustain a motion for detention, the Government must establish that (a) there is no

condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release

that would reasonably insure the Defendant’s presence for court proceedings; or (b) there is no

condition or combination of conditions which could be imposed in connection with pretrial release

that would reasonably insure the safety of any other person or the community. The former element

must be established by a preponderance of the evidence, while the latter requires proof by clear and

convincing evidence. 

The Bail Reform Act at 18 U.S.C §3142(g), directs the court to consider the following

factors in determining whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure the

appearance of the Defendant as required and the safety of any other person and the community:

C the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense

is a crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug;
2

C the weight of the evidence against the person;

C the history and characteristics of the person, including – 

C the person’s character, 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

C 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

C the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would

be posed by the person’s release.

In making my findings of fact, I have taken judicial notice of the information set forth in the

Pretrial Services Report and entire court file, and have considered the testimony presented during

the detention hearing and the arguments of counsel. Weighing the statutory factors set forth in the

Bail Reform Act, I find the following:

First, the Defendant has been charged under 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1), with Assault on a Federal

Officer.

Second, the Court has found and concluded that probable cause exists that the Defendant

committed the charged offense. 

Third, the Defendant’s criminal history shows 2 prior failures to appear, failure to comply

with terms of pretrial release on 6/24/10 for which a warrant was issued, charges of intoxication on

9/10/11 to which defendant plead guilty and that the defendant is currently under probation

supervision for a juvenile assault conviction and a DUI conviction on 6/3/11.

Finally, the Court takes notice of the nature of the offense, resisting arrest, head-butting and

kicking the arresting officer and statements made that he was going to “f--- him up” and the officer

was going to die.

As a result, after considering all of these factors, I conclude that there is clear and convincing

evidence that no condition or combination of conditions for release will reasonably assure the safety

of the community. I further find, by a preponderance of evidence, that no condition or combination

of conditions of release will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant.
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant be committed to the custody of the

Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant be afforded reasonable opportunity for

private consultation with counsel; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, 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 in which the

Defendant is confined deliver Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an

appearance in connection with a Court proceeding.

DATED and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West

United States Magistrate Judge