04-04-2016 ECF 218 USA V JASON WOODS - RESPONSE To Motion To Revoke Pretrial Detention
04-04-2016 ECF 218 USA V JASON WOODS - RESPONSE To Motion To Revoke Pretrial Detention
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
STEVEN W. MYHRE
NICHOLAS D. DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorneys
NADIA J. AHMED
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Special Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorneys Office, District of Nevada
501 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
PHONE: (702) 388-6336
FAX: (702) 388-6698
10
11
12
13
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON D. WOODS,
Defendant.
2:16-cr-00046-GMN-PAL
GOVERNMENTS RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
WOODS MOTION
FOR REVOCATION OF PRETRIAL
DETENTION ORDER (C.R. 192)
14
15
The United States, by and through the undersigned, respectfully submits its
16
17
Pretrial Detention Order (C.R. 192) (Motion or Motion to Revoke). Having been
18
charged with four counts of Section 924(c) violations, Woods submits nothing in his
19
Motion that rebuts the presumption of detention that attaches under the Bail Reform
20
Act. Additionally, the government has proffered overwhelming evidence showing that
21
22
Woods presents both a danger to the community and a risk of flight. Accordingly, the
Motion to Revoke should be denied.
23
24
FACTS
1
2
with a deadly weapon, obstructing justice, extorting federal officers by force and
conspiring to commit same, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
371; 372 111(a)(1) and (b); 1503; 1951; and 924(c). The charges arise from Woods
enforcement officers that occurred on April 12, 2014, near Bunkerville, Nevada.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
government moved for Woods detention both as a risk of flight and a danger to the
community, filing a Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Detention, the
memorandum proffering additional facts in support of its motion for detention. (C.R.
121, pp. 69-90) (Exhibit A).
On March 8, 2016, Woods received a fully-adjudicated detention hearing before
United States Magistrate Judge (Magistrate Judge) Eileen S. Willett. See Exhibit B
18
(Audio Recording of Woods March 8, 2016 Detention Hearing, filed separately). At the
19
hearing, the government relied upon the facts charged in the Superseding Indictment
20
and those proffered in its supporting Memorandum. The Magistrate Judge continued
21
the hearing until March 9, 2016, to consider the possible appointment of Woods father
22
23
On March 11, 2016, and after careful consideration of the merits, the Magistrate
24
Judge granted the governments motion and issued an Order of Detention Pending
Willet found that defendant Woods failed to rebut the presumption of detention under
the Bail Reform Act and further found that the government had established by clear
and convincing evidence that Woods presented a danger to the community and, by a
On March 25, 2016, Woods filed the instant Motion to Revoke. For the purposes
of responding to the Motion and for the Courts consideration, the government submits
by separate filing, the audio recording of the detention hearing held by Magistrate
Judge Willet.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
United States v. Leon, 766 F.2d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the Court may
19
review the evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge and makes its own independent
20
determination. Koenig, 912 F.2d at 1193 (clearly, the district court is not required to
21
start over in every case, and proceed as if the magistrate's decision and findings did not
22
exist). Or, it may take additional evidence and consider further argument. Id.
23
Under the Bail Reform Act, a charge of a violation of Title 18, United States
24
required, and the safety of the community. See 18 U.S.C. 3142(e)(3)(B). Because of
the nature and circumstances of the offenses charged against Woods which give rise to
to be weighed along with other evidence relevant to factors listed in 3142(g). See
United States v. Hir, 517 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ARGUMENT
As demonstrated in its Opening Memorandum, the government showed that
Woods failed to rebut the presumption of detention that attaches in this case under the
Bail Reform Act. The government further showed that, even in the absence of the
presumption, the Section 3142(g) factors weighed heavily in favor of detention, the
proffered evidence showing, among other things, Woods protecting Cliven Bundy at the
staging area, Woods driving himself and other gunmen to the wash at Bundys behest,
18
and Woods taking a superior tactical position vis--vis the officers at the gate in the
19
wash armed with an assault rifle, demonstrating his willingness and intent to shoot
20
federal officers.
21
22
testimony from the officers all show Woods assaulting federal law enforcement officers
23
by using and brandishing an assault rifle. The government also showed that from the
24
day of the assault to the present, Woods has never disavowed his actions (or those of
his co-conspirators), actions grounded in defiance of federal authority and federal court
orders.
flight. Woods urges that his family ties, employment, service with the Air Force and
lack of criminal history all support his release. Motion (Mot.) at 3. Yet, all of these
same factors were in place when Woods, according to the Superseding Indictment,
assaulted law enforcement officers on April 12. Woods does not explain why these
factors are more relevant now than they were then, or how these factors make him less
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
of danger now than he was on April 12 when he chose to confront law enforcement
officers with an assault rifle.
Woods also claims that he left the Arizona Militia less than a month after
returning from Bundy Ranch and, outside a discussion about tattoos with do-defendant
McGuire, he has had no other contact with his co-defendants. Mot. at 3-4. But, Woods
continued to advertise his affiliation and belief in the III% movement by the logo on his
truck (Opening Memorandum at 16).
18
HGHCLBR (i.e., high caliber) (id.) dispel the notion that Woods is no longer
19
motivated by the beliefs that compelled him to travel from Arizona to Nevada with an
20
assault rifle to confront law enforcement officers who were just doing their jobs.
21
Woods contends that the truck logo and license plate are irrelevant to the issue
22
of detention because of they fall within his First Amendment right to free speech. Mot.
23
at 6. But Woods is not being prosecuted for his speech or the beliefs that undergird it.
24
He is being prosecuted for his actions and the mindset that motivated those actions is
always relevant.
detention hearing. See Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476, 489 (1993) (affirming the
use of speech that preceded the murder of a white victim as evidence for a hate crime
enhancement, holding the First Amendment, [ ] does not prohibit the evidentiary use
trials subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like.) The
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
fact that Woods continues to believe that it is appropriate to use force against federal
government officers when he does not agree with the rulings of a court is an entirely
relevant consideration as to whether Woods is a danger to the community. He has
never disavowed his beliefs, beliefs he maintains so strongly the he branded his vehicle
with them and publically posted them to Facebook for the world to see as recently as a
few months ago. Opening Memorandum at 16.
Woods further urges that it is not him depicted in some of the photographs set
18
out in the governments Opening Memorandum, that he left Bundy Ranch within 24
19
hours after arriving there, and that he never raised or pointed a weapon at a federal
20
officer. Mot. at 3 and 5. The photographs are what they are and the Court will be able
21
to determine for itself whether it is Woods, or someone who just looks like him,
22
depicted in the photographs. But whatever Woods contention in this regard, the grand
23
jury has already determined probable cause to believe that Woods perpetrated the
24
offenses with which he is charged and the detention hearing should not serve as a
Further, whether Woods actually raised his weapon or (more to Woods point)
whether the government has an image of him raising his weapon at an officer is
demonstrated by the proffered testimony of the officers in the wash, the tactical
position taken by the gunmen especially those like Woods who were located on the
skirt of the Southbound I-15 bridge presented the threat and fear of immediate bodily
injury or death to the officers at the gate. Woods knew what he was doing when he
took that position he knew the message he intended to send: you will be shot if you
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
take any law enforcement actions to prevent Bundys Followers from getting the
impounded cattle. Woods did not need to aim his assault rifle to either communicate
that threat or otherwise assault the officers and force them to abandon their position
rather than risk death or injury to themselves or others.
Also irrelevant is the notion that Woods is no longer a danger to the community
because he left after the assault and extortion. The Superseding Indictment charges
that Woods was a co-conspirator in a conspiracy that continued well after April 12 and
18
at least to the date of the Superseding Indictment, the conspirators pledging to use
19
force and violence in the future to keep law enforcement officers from recovering the ill-
20
gotten gains from the extortion or enforcing the laws against Bundy and the co-
21
conspirators.
22
constitute a withdrawal from the conspiracy. Once hes in; hes in. And he only gets
23
Whether Woods left after the assault does not, as a matter of law,
24
Simply put, the proceeds from the extortion still roam the public lands under the
forceful protection of Bundy and his co-conspirators, including Woods. As long as the
cattle are there, the promise that Bundy and his co-conspirators will do it again if the
federal government takes law enforcement action remains in place. Woods has done
nothing to renounce that promise, renounce or disavow the actions of his co-
conspirators, or renounce or disavow his own actions. All he has done is attempt to
minimize his involvement which neither rebuts the presumption or mitigates his
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Lastly, none of Woods proposed conditions mitigate the risk of flight or danger
to the community, more specifically, the law enforcement community. That Woods is
willing to dehumanize federal law enforcement officers executing lawful court orders
and then treat them as though they are nothing more than the arm of an oppressive
government, and therefore justify an incredibly violent assault on those officers, people
he has never met and does not know, shows that Woods is incredibly dangerous.
Woods is not a traditional flight risk in the sense that he is expected to flee the
country, but rather that he will continue to disregard federal court orders, just as he
18
did on April 12. The fact that Woods complied with an arrest that was tactically
19
planned to provide little meaningful opportunity to resist does not mean he will comply
20
with the orders of this Court going forward. His actions on April 12 show that he is
21
fully capable of disregarding the orders of this Court by use of force. And, as charged
22
in the Superseding Indictment, he has already used force and the threat of force to
23
prevent another person, Cliven Bundy, from being arrested. There is no reason to
24
believe he would not be willing to use force to resist federal court orders or impede
Nor is it appropriate to compare Woods to his co-defendants and urge that he not
confrontations with the government. The assault of April 12th was a violent,
against federal law enforcement officers. Woods fully participated. The photographs in
the governments Opening Memorandum show Woods guarding Cliven Bundy while on
stage, standing in a formation armed with a sidearm, driving other gunman to the
wash, entering the wash with an assault rifle in hand, and taking an elevated position
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to square off with federal agents on the low ground in the wash. Neither Woods
dangerousness nor his risk of flight as shown by his participation in this assault is
mitigated by the fact that others have taken more than one opportunity to use force or
seek to use force against officers of the United States on other occasions.
WHEREFORE, for all the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully
requests that the Court deny the Motion to Revoke and Order the continued detention
of Woods pending trial, both as a risk of flight and as a danger to the community.
DATED this 4th day of April, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
//s//
STEVEN W. MYHRE
NICHOLAS D. DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorneys
NADIA J. AHMED
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Special Assistant United States Attorneys
1
2
3
CERTIFICATE OF SEVICE
4
5
CM/ECF.
/s/ Steven W. Myhre
_____________________________
STEVEN W. MYHRE
Assistant United States Attorney
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10