United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING CORNELIUS
GALLOWAY'S APPEAL OF DETENTION ORDER
WILLIAM P. JOHNSON CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER is before the Court on Cornelius Galloway's Appeal
of Detention Order, filed November 21, 2017 (Doc.
108). The Court directed Pretrial Services to update
the Pretrial Services report and then directed Defendant to
proffer evidence that shows he could rebut the presumption of
detention. See Docs. 124,
158. This matter was fully briefed on
February 16, 2018. Upon reviewing the pretrial services
report, the briefing, and Defendant's proffer, the Court
finds that Defendant's appeal is not well taken and is
November 15, 2017, a grand jury returned a second superseding
indictment charging Defendant with conspiracy, three counts
of sex trafficking by means of force, threats, or coercion,
and sex trafficking of a minor. Doc. 103.
The charge of conspiracy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371
includes as overt acts the murders of D.Y. and T.S.
appeared at a detention hearing before the Magistrate Judge
William Lynch on May 22, 2017. Defendant waived his right to
a detention hearing and agreed to be detained, but reserved
the right to petition the court to review his detention.
See Doc. 27. Magistrate Judge Lynch
found that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his
right to a detention hearing and agreed to be detained.
Doc. 150. The waiver and detention ordered
were filed that same day.
Notice of Appeal, Mr. Galloway requested an evidentiary
hearing. Doc. 108 Defendant sought to
cross-examine two detectives on the evidence connecting the
defendant to the two murders. Defendant asserts this evidence
falls under two of the statutory factors in the Bail Reform
Act, the “nature and circumstances of the
offense” and “weight of the evidence.”
Defendant requested release to the La Pasada Halfway House,
and agreed to electronic monitoring.
conducting a status conference on December 14, 2017, the
Court ordered Pretrial Services to update the Pretrial
Services Report. Since it was unclear how Defendant intended
to rebut the presumption, the Court also ordered Defendant to
proffer the evidence he would present at a hearing. Pretrial
Services filed an updated Pretrial Services Report on January
2, 2018. In his supplemental brief filed on January 26, 2018,
Defendant detailed the evidence he intended to elicit at the
cross examination of Detective Matthew Volmer and Detective
Jodi Gonterman. This matter was fully briefed on February 16,
Hearing on Notice of Appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
filed a Notice of Appeal of the detention order. A district
judge reviews an appeal of a detention order pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3145(b). There is no statutory requirement to hold
a hearing on an appeal pursuant to § 3145. Moreover, the
Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to a detention
hearing. Fed.R.Evid. 1101(d).
a district judge has the discretion to determine how to hear
evidence or whether to hold a hearing pursuant to §
3145. United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610, 617
(10th Cir. 2003) (“Although in conducting her de novo
review Judge Armijo considered the evidence submitted during
the Arizona hearing, she also held her own hearing to
consider new evidence from the parties, as was her
prerogative.”); see also United States v.
Koenig, 912 F.2d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[The
District Court] should review the evidence before the
magistrate and make its own independent determination whether
the magistrate's findings are correct, with no deference.
If the performance of that function makes it necessary or
desirable for the district judge to hold additional
evidentiary hearings, it may do so, and its power to do so is
not limited to occasions when evidence is offered that was
not presented to the magistrate.”); United States
v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 708 n.8 (7th Cir. 1986).
This includes the discretion to hear a proffer. See,
e.g., United States v. Bustamante-Conchas, 557 Fed.Appx.
803, 804 n.1 (10th Cir. 2014) (detention determination made
on assertions of parties without testimony or evidence).
“The standard of review for the district court's
review of a magistrate judge's detention or release order
under § 3145(a) is de novo.” Cisneros,
328 F.3d at 616 n. 1.
Court finds this matter is a fishing expedition and without
merit. Defendant primarily wishes to test the
Government's evidence of his involvement in the murder
charges through cross-examination of the detectives. The
Court will not hold a hearing for that purpose. As explained
below, since his proffer does not tend to rebut the
presumption, and the Government otherwise carried its burden
of persuasion on the undisputed evidence, the Court declines
to hold a hearing.
Rebuttable Presumption Arises.
of the Second Superseding Indictment (Doc.
103), sex trafficking of a minor (18 U.S.C. §
1591(b)(2)), establishes a rebuttable presumption that
“no condition or combination of conditions will
reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety
of the community.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E).
Defendant admits the rebuttable presumption applies.
Defendant's burden to produce evidence to rebut the
presumption. See United States v. Stricklin, 932
F.2d 1353, 1354-55 (10th Cir. 1991). “The
defendant's burden of production is not heavy, but some
evidence must be produced. Even if a defendant's burden
of production is met, the presumption remains a factor for
consideration by the district court in determining whether to
release or detain.” Id. at 1355.
“However, the burden of persuasion regarding
risk-of-flight and danger to the community always remains
with the government.” Id. at 1354. See
also United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702
(7th Cir. 1986) (“The presumption is
“rebutted” when the defendant meets a burden of
production by coming forward with some evidence that he will
not flee or endanger the community if ...