Fields v. Lawson
Filing
9
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 12/22/2014. (rmc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DEREK FIELDS,
PETITIONER,
VS.
JULIE LAWSON,
RESPONDENT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1844-RLM
(ARISING OUT OF: 3:11-CR-149-RLM)
OPINION and ORDER
Derek Fields filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 while being held at the St. Joseph County Jail pending his supervised
release revocation hearing. Mr. Fields originally pleaded guilty to unlawful
possession of a firearm and was sentenced to time served and a two-year
supervised release term. A mandatory supervised release condition prohibits
defendants from committing another federal, state, or local crime during the
term of supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). On March 4, 2014, near the end of
his supervised release term, Mr. Fields was charged with aggravated battery in
St. Joseph Superior Court. As a result, this court found reason to believe Mr.
Fields had violated a supervised release condition by committing another crime
and issued a warrant for his arrest. He was arrested May 30, and an initial
hearing was held the same day. The defendant moved to continue the
preliminary hearing held a few days later on June 4. The parties reconvened on
the 10th, presented evidence and argument, and the court found sufficient
probable cause to believe Mr. Fields had violated a condition of his supervised
release. At the detention hearing the next day, the court found that Mr. Fields
should be held without bond pending further proceedings. A final hearing on
the revocation of Mr. Fields’ supervised release term was held on September
29. After evidence and argument, the court revoked Mr. Fields’s supervised
release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment followed by a one year
term of supervised release.
In his § 2241 petition, Mr. Fields says that he isn’t challenging his
conviction or sentence. He argues the court unlawfully allowed his detention so
the U.S. Marshals could investigate and indict him and the court allowed the
government to admit video footage of a witness’s testimony at the detention
hearing, which denied his right to confront and cross-examine the witness. His
arguments focus on his detention before the supervised release revocation
hearing and evidence presented at his detention hearing. Typically a defendant
will seek review of a magistrate judge’s detention order from the district court,
18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), or appeal the district court’s detention decision to the
court of appeals, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). Because Mr. Fields filed his challenge
under § 2241, his petition wasn’t initially connected to his criminal case. Upon
discovery that Mr. Fields had a related criminal case, the § 2241 petition was
reassigned to the judge who presided over those proceedings. Unfortunately,
the connection was made after Mr. Fields’ supervised release revocation
-2-
hearing, so the period of detention had been resolved. Nonetheless, the court
will briefly discuss Mr. Fields’ arguments.
First, Mr. Fields argues that on August 13, the court continued his
supervised release revocation hearing until October 20 to give the U.S.
Marshals time to investigate and indict him. After the June 11 evidentiary
detention hearing, the Magistrate Judge ordered Mr. Fields detained pending
further proceedings. Other than his accusations about the court’s motivations,
he doesn’t specifically challenge the detention order. Mr. Fields points to a date
two months later and says he was unlawfully detained. He is mistaken about
the circumstances surrounding the August 14 continuance. Mr. Fields’s
supervised release revocation hearing was initially set for July 17, but at that
hearing he made an oral motion, which the court granted, to continue the
hearing to let him hire his own lawyer. The court held a status conference on
August 6, in which the supervised release revocation hearing was rescheduled
for August 20. The new counsel, unsurprisingly, then moved for a continuance.
On August 14, the court held a hearing on that motion and granted Mr.
Fields’s motion to continue the supervised release revocation hearing to
October 24.1 The court moved the hearing to October because Mr. Fields asked
him to.
Second, Mr. Fields claims the court allowed the government to admit
video footage of a witness’s testimony at the detention hearing, denying him his
1
The hearing was ultimately held on September 29.
-3-
right to confront and cross-examine the witness. On June 10 and 11, the court
held the preliminary hearing to decide whether probable cause existed on the
petition alleging the violation of the terms of supervised release and to address
the government’s motion for detention. During the hearings, the government
entered three videos into evidence, with no objection from Mr. Fields. Those
videos contained footage of police interviews of the victim at the crime scene
and in the hospital. In all criminal prosecutions, the Sixth Amendment requires
the accused to have the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
U.S. CONST. amend. VI. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f) outlines the required procedure for
detention hearings, and in addition to the right to counsel and the opportunity
to testify, to present witnesses, and to present information, a person may
“cross-examine witnesses who appear at the hearing.” “The rules concerning
admissibility of evidence in criminal trials do not apply to the presentation and
consideration of information” at the detention hearing. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f).
These statutory procedures adequately protect the liberty interest at stake at
detention hearings. United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 767 (7th Cir. 1985).
Although the right to confront witnesses is required to ensure due process at a
trial, that right isn’t necessary in all criminal proceedings. Id. For example, the
confrontation clause doesn’t apply at sentencing hearings. United States v.
Isom, 635 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2011). The Sixth Amendment right to
confront and cross-examine witnesses doesn’t apply at supervised release
revocation hearings, but the Fifth Amendment right of confrontation applies,
-4-
unless the hearsay is reliable. United States v. Mosley, 759 F.3d 664, 667 (7th
Cir. 2014); United States v. Jordan, 765 F.3d 785, 787-788 (7th Cir. 2014). A
supervised release revocation hearing is more akin to a trial than a sentencing.
“The defendant is not entitled to all of the protections of a criminal trial, but
the stakes [of a supervised release revocation hearing] may be months or even
years in prison. A court considering [whether to require the witness to appear
under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b)(2)(C)] cannot lose sight of
those stakes . . . .” United States v. Jordan, 765 F.3d at 788. At one end of the
spectrum of criminal proceedings is a trial, with a permanent liberty interest at
stake. At the other end of the spectrum is a detention hearing, with a
temporary liberty interest at stake. On the trial end of the continuum lies a
supervised release revocation hearing with similarly permanent liberty interests
at stake. But a sentencing hearing lies at the end of the continuum near a
detention hearing. A defendant doesn’t have the right to confront witnesses at a
sentencing hearing, United States v. Isom, 635 F.3d 904, 907 (7th Cir. 2011),
and he also doesn’t have the right to confront witnesses at a detention hearing.
See United States v. Hernandez, 778 F. Supp. 2d 1211, 1219-1220 (D.N.M.
2011) (confrontation clause doesn’t apply to detention hearings). The use of
video testimony at Mr. Fields’s detention hearing didn’t violate his right to
confront and cross-examine a witness.
For the foregoing reasons, the court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
-5-
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: December 22, 2014
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court
-6-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?