Sorry for skipping around, but it is helpful to see the events of John’s life in context--and to do that, we need to fast forward to 2006 briefly.
John was indicted on his federal felony weapons charges on April 20 2006. Of course those charges didn’t come out of nowhere. To understand what led to them we need to know what John was up to between the time he was released from prison on his robbery convictions at the end of July 1997 until he was indicted by the federal grand jury in April of 2006. It’s a disturbing story.
But the first chapter actually begins with something that happened shortly after John’s federal indictment. After being arraigned on May 15, John was denied bail and held in the county jail awaiting trial. Denial of bail to a criminal defendant is a pretty serious matter; except in capital murder cases it generally requires showing that “pre-trial detention of individuals [is] based upon their danger to the community.” In John’s case the Court determined he was a flight risk as well as a danger to the community, and more specifically that:
John was indicted on his federal felony weapons charges on April 20 2006. Of course those charges didn’t come out of nowhere. To understand what led to them we need to know what John was up to between the time he was released from prison on his robbery convictions at the end of July 1997 until he was indicted by the federal grand jury in April of 2006. It’s a disturbing story.
But the first chapter actually begins with something that happened shortly after John’s federal indictment. After being arraigned on May 15, John was denied bail and held in the county jail awaiting trial. Denial of bail to a criminal defendant is a pretty serious matter; except in capital murder cases it generally requires showing that “pre-trial detention of individuals [is] based upon their danger to the community.” In John’s case the Court determined he was a flight risk as well as a danger to the community, and more specifically that:
The defendant has a substantial prior criminal history including crimes of violence. He has a substantial drug abuse history. There are two current protection orders outstanding against him. On two traffic stops, firearms were found in his possession.
No condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of any other person or the community.
Strong stuff about not being able to assure the safety of anyone in the community with John out on the streets. We’ve already covered some of John’s “substantial prior criminal history” (though there’s more to come), however the bit about drugs and protection orders we haven’t seen yet. Those traffic stops will prove to be an illuminating capstone to what John was up to between 1997 and 2006, and we’ll get to them soon.
So here John is, sitting in jail -- awaiting trial, and likely informed that he was looking at many, many years in prison. If only there were some bargaining chip he could play.
Apparently there was--for suddenly the US Attorney asks to talk to John, and requests that the US Marshal deliver him from jail to the US Attorney’s office 2 days later. Whether it was a sudden recollection or a sudden eagerness to disclose something he’d been keeping quiet for nine years when it could finally benefit him … is hard to prove.
But it was an interesting and unexpected conversation. Interesting for reasons we’ll soon see and unexpected at least for John’s attorney, who the very next day withdrew from representing John--in a motion he filed under seal, no less. What was it that John planned to say the next day that caused his attorney to back out so suddenly? And for reasons he couldn’t say in open court?
While the docket indicates it had something to do with a conflict of interest, according to two criminal attorneys I spoke with locally a conflict alone wouldn’t normally require a motion under seal. More likely, John planned to proffer something that implicated someone else the attorney was ethically bound to defend. Or perhaps as the conversation unfolded that day, John would say things even his attorney suspected weren’t true, and he could no longer ethically represent him.
To find out, we’ll need to go back to the period right after John got out of prison for robbery, in 1997. It turns out, it didn’t take John very long to get mixed up with something even worse than robbery. At least he had good company this time around.
So here John is, sitting in jail -- awaiting trial, and likely informed that he was looking at many, many years in prison. If only there were some bargaining chip he could play.
Apparently there was--for suddenly the US Attorney asks to talk to John, and requests that the US Marshal deliver him from jail to the US Attorney’s office 2 days later. Whether it was a sudden recollection or a sudden eagerness to disclose something he’d been keeping quiet for nine years when it could finally benefit him … is hard to prove.
But it was an interesting and unexpected conversation. Interesting for reasons we’ll soon see and unexpected at least for John’s attorney, who the very next day withdrew from representing John--in a motion he filed under seal, no less. What was it that John planned to say the next day that caused his attorney to back out so suddenly? And for reasons he couldn’t say in open court?
While the docket indicates it had something to do with a conflict of interest, according to two criminal attorneys I spoke with locally a conflict alone wouldn’t normally require a motion under seal. More likely, John planned to proffer something that implicated someone else the attorney was ethically bound to defend. Or perhaps as the conversation unfolded that day, John would say things even his attorney suspected weren’t true, and he could no longer ethically represent him.
To find out, we’ll need to go back to the period right after John got out of prison for robbery, in 1997. It turns out, it didn’t take John very long to get mixed up with something even worse than robbery. At least he had good company this time around.