United States v. Henry Vance

Citations: 851 F.2d 166; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9272; 1988 WL 69055Docket: 87-6366

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; July 8, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed a motion from the government to revoke Henry Vance's bond following his conviction for conspiracy and aiding the transportation of a weapon used in the murder of a state prosecutor in Florida. Despite a jury's guilty verdict and a maximum sentence of fifteen years imprisonment with a mandatory fine, the district court allowed Vance to remain on bail, leading the government to expedite an appeal against this decision. The government argued that Vance did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he posed no danger to the community.

On February 23, 1988, the appellate court found that Vance failed to meet the necessary criteria for bail pending appeal and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of his potential danger to others. During a subsequent hearing on March 3, 1988, the U.S. Attorney reiterated the argument for Vance's detention, while Vance's counsel sought to delay his surrender and extend the time for him to report for sentencing. The district court initially considered requiring Vance to surrender immediately but expressed concern over media disclosure of his imminent arrest. 

The record indicated confusion regarding the government's stance on Vance's threat level during sentencing, as the government had previously characterized him as a danger. The prosecution emphasized that Vance bore the burden of proof to justify continued bond under Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3143, citing the serious nature of his offenses and his potential flight risk due to evidence of his use of aliases.

Mr. Vance is perceived as dangerous following his conviction, leading to concerns within the community about his presence in Lexington, Kentucky. The prosecutor argues that the burden is on the defendant to provide clear and convincing evidence that he does not pose a danger to others while out on bond pending appeal. According to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3143(a), a convicted individual must demonstrate they are not a danger to the community to be released. The district court erred by not holding a detention hearing, as it must presume dangerousness until the defendant overcomes that presumption. Although the court considered letters supporting Vance, these were not part of the official record during the bail decision, and the government did not have the opportunity to review or respond to them. As such, the evidence was insufficient to warrant bail, reinforcing the necessity for the government to examine any evidence presented by the defendant.

Numerous letters submitted to the court, primarily from family members, express support for Vance and assert his innocence regarding the charges. Despite this, the court finds Vance's release unwarranted, citing evidence of his dangerousness presented during the trial. The court emphasized Vance's overwhelming guilt, describing the offense as a serious and senseless murder linked to Vance's involvement with Bonnie Kelly, who was implicated in the murder of a state prosecutor using a gun he allegedly provided. Vance's connections to criminal activities, including those of his associates, were considered in the court's decision to impose a maximum sentence. Under the Bail Reform Act, Vance bears the burden of proving he is not a danger to the community or likely to flee, a standard reinforced by precedents establishing that the burden of proof lies with the defendant post-conviction. The court's assessment of Vance's situation indicates a serious concern for public safety, taking into account not just his actions but the broader implications of his associations.

The legislative history indicates that the term "dangerousness" in the Act encompasses more than just physical violence, reflecting Congress's concern for both individual and community safety. Judicial officers must consider several factors when deciding on a defendant's detention, including the seriousness of the offense, evidence against the defendant, personal history, and the potential danger posed by release. In the case of Vance, the court found overwhelming evidence of guilt and a significant threat he posed, particularly given his past associations and lack of testimonial evidence supporting his release. The district court's decision to grant Vance bond after conviction was deemed erroneous, as the Bail Reform Act presumes against post-conviction release. The court denied Vance's motion to recall the mandate and granted the government's request for detention pending appeal. The matter was remanded to the district court for appropriate action. Furthermore, procedural concerns were noted regarding the timing of the mandate issuance and the prosecutor's lack of opportunity to review certain letters before sentencing.