United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
Gershwin A. Drain United States District Court Judge
March 27, 2018, Defendant Jhamall Keshan McGaughy (pronounced
me-goi) was charged in an indictment with multiple counts of
commercial sex trafficking and related interstate
transportation charges, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1591(a)(1); and 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a), respectively. ECF
No. 12. He previously made an initial appearance on the
Complaint and consented to federal detention. ECF No. 10.
Superseding Indictment was issued on July 19, 2018, modifying
only which sections of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 applied to the
commercial sex trafficking charges: 18 U.S.C. §§
1591(a)(1), (b)(1). ECF No. 20. The substance of the
Government's allegations was maintained. ECF No. 84,
the First Superseding Indictment, Magistrate Judge David
Grand denied bond to Defendant. ECF No. 35. Magistrate Judge
Grand found that Defendant failed to offer sufficient
evidence to rebut the presumption of detention under 18
U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3). Id. at PageID.125.
Specifically, Magistrate Judge Grand determined that
Defendant posed a danger to the community based on the nature
of his offense which involves his “alleged use of drugs
and violent physical assaults to keep his victims performing
commercial sex acts.” Id. Furthermore, he
denoted the Government's “strong evidence” of
Defendant's alleged use of violence in the instant case
as well as his lengthy criminal history. Id.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Grand weighed the significant
sentence which Defendant faces if convicted. Id.
the time of his initial consent to detention in March 2018
and Magistrate Judge Grand's decision to deny bond in
November 2018, the Government has filed three superseding
indictments. The Fourth Superseding Indictment, filed on May
14, 2019, charged Defendant with four violations of the
Controlled Substances Act, including conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances-more than 100 grams of heroin and more
than twenty-eight grams of crack cocaine-with co-defendant
Michael Anthony Frost, 18 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846;
distribution of controlled substances, 18 U.S.C. § 841;
and two counts of distribution of controlled substances to
pregnant individuals, 21 U.S.C. § 861(f). Defendant was
also charged with six counts of commercial sex trafficking,
18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)(1); (b)(1); and one count of
obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1), for
attempting to destroy his cell phone with the intent to
damage its availability in later proceedings. See
ECF No. 65.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Bond, filed on
July 26, 2019. ECF No. 84. The Government filed a Response on
August 9, 2019. ECF No. 89. A hearing on Defendant's
Motion was held on September 30, 2019. For the reasons that
follow, the Court will DENY Defendant's Motion [#84].
instant action stems from an alleged drug and prostitution
enterprise in the Eastern District of Michigan and elsewhere
during the latter half of 2017 and the first two months of
2018. Defendant allegedly ran this enterprise to generate
demand and cash for the women working under his control as
prostitutes to purchase drugs. ECF No. 65, PageID.216. He
posted online advertisements for the prostitutes, including
www.Backpage.com. Id. He set the prices,
time periods, and specific sexual acts for the
prostitutes' “dates.” Id.
enterprise moved around metro-Detroit for several months in
2017, shifting between various hotels before settling in a
house on Cheyenne Street, owned by co-defendant Michael
Frost, in December 2017. ECF No. 89, PageID.373. Co-defendant
was a “regular supplier” of controlled
substances, including heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine, to
Defendant. ECF No. 65, PageID.216. Defendant then allegedly
provided the prostitutes with access to these drugs in return
for their sexual acts. ECF No. 89, PageID.373. He
“controlled [the] prostitutes” by supplying drugs
to them in order to “increase their dependence on the
drugs, and then restricting or cutting off [their] access[.]
By this means, [Defendant] kept the women working for him on
the edge of being ‘dopesick'[.]” ECF No. 65,
PageID.216. When this control was no longer sufficient,
Defendant allegedly resorted to physical violence. ECF No.
89, PageID.374. Six women reported Defendant's use of
such violence. Id. Several other women further
described being punched, raped, or witnessing other women
being victimized. Id.
is a thirty-five-year-old native of the district. Pretrial
Services Report, at 1. He has familial ties to the area,
including his father, eldest child, and grandmother.
Id. at 2. His mother and two siblings reside in
Georgia. Id. at 1. Defendant has an employment
history working as a repair technician at bowling alleys in
the Detroit area. ECF No. 35, PageID.354. He claims he can
procure employment at Sister's Spit Shine should he be
released on bond. Id.
reported a substance abuse history beginning at age fourteen,
including alcohol, cannabinoids, and ecstasy, to Pretrial
Services. Pretrial Services Report, at 3. Defendant also has
a criminal history in Michigan and Georgia. He has
convictions for obstructing police, four drug offenses,
domestic violence, and receipt of stolen property.
Id. at 4-6.
time of his arrest in the instant case, Defendant was on
probation, wearing a tether, for drug offenses in Genesee
County and for receiving stolen property charges out of
Macomb County. ECF No. 89, PageID.379. Defendant's tether
was affixed to Co-defendant's house address in Detroit:
the alleged site of the drug and prostitution enterprise.
Id. at PageID.380.
now moves this Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b),
to revoke Magistrate Judge Grand's prior order of
detention and to issue an order releasing him on bond pending
trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(a). ECF No. 84,
PageID.347. First, Defendant maintains that he poses neither
a danger to the community nor a risk of flight under 18
U.S.C. § 3142(c) since he has strong family ties in
Michigan that can provide him with both a stable residence
and an ability to reestablish employment. Id. at
PageID.348. He emphasizes that conditions can be imposed to
alleviate concerns. Id. Second, Defendant argues
that his continued pretrial detention amounts to
“punitive detention” given the delays in the
prosecution of this case. Id. at PageID.349.
Government represents that Magistrate Judge Grand's order
indicates how strong the evidence against Defendant was at
the time of the First Superseding Indictment. Since then,
Defendant faces additional and more aggravated drug and
commercial sex trafficking charges, some carrying their own
presumption of detention. ECF No. 89, PageID.380.
The Government argues that Defendant fails to offer
compelling evidence to rebut these presumptions or to assure
the Court that he no longer presents a community threat or
flight risk. Id.
The Bail Reform Act
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) allows the district judge to review
an order detaining a defendant. This review is a de
novo hearing. U.S. v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390,
1394 (3d Cir. ...