Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Plaintiff,
4:18CR3070
vs.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO REVIEW DETENTION
JOSEPH MELTON,
Defendant.
COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant
United States Attorney, and respectfully requests the Court deny the defendant’s motion to
review detention and deny the defendant’s request for an additional hearing on detention. The
defendant has failed to demonstrate any material change in fact that would impact the Court’s
1. At the initial appearance on July 13, 2018, Melton asked for a hearing on the issue of
detention (Filing No. 9). This Court received evidence, including testimony from S.A. Cory
Shelton (Filing No. 12), the Pretrial Services’ report, and an affidavit from a hearing regarding a
protection order that was granted against Melton (Filing No. 11). After hearing all of the
evidence, this Court found that Melton presents “a risk of harm to the public” if released (Filing
No. 17 at ECF p.1). This Court also observed that Melton has a history of threatening others
(Id.), and that Melton was dishonest with ATF and Pretrial Services, showing a “substantial risk
2. In his motion for release, Melton argues his criminal history was overstated (Filing
No. 23 at ECF p.1). In support of that, Melton offers a printout showing that an earlier charge of
third degree assault was later reduced to “intimidation by phone call” (Filing No. 23 at ECF p.5,
4:18-cr-03070-JMG-CRZ Doc # 25 Filed: 08/12/18 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID # 43
Defendant’s Exhibit A). Defendant’s Exhibit A fails to demonstrate that Melton’s criminal
history was overstated as the Pretrial Services report noted for that offense that the “judgment
[was] set aside” (PTS Report p.5). Moreover, that Melton threatened someone over the phone
does nothing to alleviate any concerns about the danger he poses to the public.
3. Melton also offers a self-serving statement that he understands the need to be honest
(Filing No. 23 at ECF p.3), but that statement is no different than what Melton’s counsel stated at
4. Melton discusses the numerous voicemails the government received from people
within the community expressing great concern for their safety should Melton be released from
custody (Filing No. 23 at ECF pp. 2-3). Melton states that those calls must have been from his
political opponents, and argues that the concerns are not real. There are three problems with
Melton’s argument. The first is that this is the same argument Melton raised at the first hearing,
and so he is not presenting new evidence that could affect the decision to detain Melton. The
second problem is that this Court was clear at the first hearing that the voicemails played no part
in this Court’s decision to detain Melton. Since the voicemails did not affect the decision to
detain Melton, Melton again is not presenting new evidence that should change the decision to
detain him. And third, Melton has never heard the voicemails, and so he has no way of knowing
5. Regarding the protection order, Melton states that at the state court hearing pertaining
to the protection order, he offered evidence showing that person who sought the protection order
was lying (Filing No. 23 at ECF p.2). If Melton is talking about the same protection order that
this Court received into evidence at the first hearing, then Melton overlooks a critical fact. The
court who heard the evidence granted the protection order. The request for the protection order
* 2
4:18-cr-03070-JMG-CRZ Doc # 25 Filed: 08/12/18 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID # 44
must have had some merit, because after hearing the evidence, the protection order was granted.
Moreover, this is the same argument Melton raised at the first hearing, and this does not amount
“If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge…the person may file with the court having
original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order.”
Having not appealed the original order, and presenting no new evidence in his new motion that
should change the decision to detain Melton, the government submits that Melton’s motion
7. If this Court were to grant a hearing, the government will call S.A. Cory Shelton.
Agent Shelton has continued with the investigation, and has obtained new evidence of Melton
resorting to dishonesty. New evidence has been uncovered about Melton doing things such as,
for example, forging, or directing others to forge, documents related to the sale of firearms.
This evidence will help to show that Melton’s dishonesty with ATF during the investigation, and
with the Pretrial Services’ Office, were not rare occasions of dishonesty, but rather were part of a
pattern of dishonesty. Moreover, Agent Shelton will testify about newly uncovered evidence of
Melton being a danger to the community by doing things such as discharging firearms within
city limits.
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests this Court deny the defendant’s
request for a new hearing as the defendant has not cited to any new evidence that might change
* 3
4:18-cr-03070-JMG-CRZ Doc # 25 Filed: 08/12/18 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID # 45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 12, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to all
registered participants.
s/ Matthew R. Molsen
Assistant U.S. Attorney
* 4