The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
The matter before the Court is the motion for reconsideration of detention order and for setting of bail filed by the Defendant David Jacquot. ECF No. 103.
On August 16, 2010, the Defendant was arraigned on three counts of Transportation of a Minor to Engage in Criminal Sexual Activity in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a). At that time, the Defendant was currently awaiting trial on a two count indictment alleging False Statements in Tax Returns in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1) in Case No. 08cr1171-WQH. The Government moved to detain the Defendant pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e) on the grounds that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance as required and the safety of any other person and the community.
On August 18, 2010, after a full hearing, Magistrate Judge Victor Bianchini ordered theDefendant detained pending trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). The Magistrate Judge found that there was probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the offense of transportation of a minor with intent to commit criminal sexual activity, and that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance as required.
On August 20, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered a Detention Order. ECF No. 11. On September 2, 2010, United States District Court Judge Whelan conducted a detention hearing, upon appeal of the Detention Order of the Magistrate Judge. Judge Whelan considered evidence and argument, the transcript of the hearing before the Magistrate Judge, the transcript of the detention hearing on May 26, 2010 in Case No. 08cr1171-WQH, the report prepared by United States Pretrial Services recommending detention, and the detention order by the Magistrate Judge. Judge Whelan made an independent determination that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance as required and affirmed the Detention Order issued by the Magistrate Judge on August 20, 2010.
Defendant appealed the order of detention to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 12, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the detention order finding that "[t]he district court correctly found that the government met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 'no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the [defendant's] appearance,' 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), and that appellant therefore poses a risk of flight." ECF No. 29.
On March 3, 2010 and March 11, 2010, this court held hearings and heard testimony and received exhibits regarding the Defendant's competency to stand trial.
On March 29, 2010, this Court found that by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense and that pursuant to Section 4241(e), the Defendant is mentally competent to stand trial. ECF No. 99.
At the request of the Defendant, trial in this case has been scheduled for August 16, 2011.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
Defendant moves the Court for reconsideration of the order of detention so that he may be properly able to defend himself. Defendant contends that his detention prevents him from receiving proper therapy for his post traumatic stress disorder and his speech disorder. Given his medical conditions, Defendant asserts that his detention will result in a violation of the fifth amendment right to due process and the sixth amendment right to a fair trial. Defendant asserts that the obstacles to a fair trial could be minimized if he was residing in a half-way house. The Government asserts that there are no additional facts or circumstances relevant to reconsider the determination by the Magistrate Judge, the District Judge and the Court of Appeals that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure his appearance as required.
Section 3142(f) provides in part that a detention hearing: may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial officer, at any time before trial if the judicial officer finds that information exists that was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonable ...