UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CRIMINAL NO. 3:03-CR-120 HTW JCS

PAUL MINOR, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN SUPPORT OF

PETITION TO REVOKE BOND OF DEFENDANT PAUL MINOR

The United States submits this Memorandum in support of the Petition to revoke the

bond of defendant Paul Minor based on Minor’s violations of the conditions of his bond.

I. MINOR’S PRIOR VIOLATIONS AND THE COURT’S RULING

The Court previously conducted a hearing on Minor’s violations of his pre-trial release on

bond relating to his arrest for Driving Under the Influence in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

A. MINOR FAILED TO REPORT HIS DUI ARREST RELATING TO AN

ACCIDENT WITH INJURIES

Minor failed to report his arrest for DUI relating to a motor vehicle accident with injuries

to the United States Probation Office as is required under the conditions of his bond. Minor

never presented any explanation for this failure and the Court found that he had violated this

condition. In addition, the government presented evidence of other DUI arrests to show that

Minor has a history of excessive alcohol use and that he presents a danger to the community.

B. EVIDENCE OF MINOR’S PRIOR INTOXICATION AT THE MARRIOT

HOTEL IN JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI

The government and the United States Probation Office also provided evidence at the

prior hearing concerning alcohol abuse by Paul Minor at the Marriot Hotel in Jackson,

Mississippi on previous occasions. The unrebutted evidence showed that Minor had been
intoxicated numerous times in the bar at the Marriot Hotel, that he had to be assisted to his room

and that he had on several occasions passed out from alcohol consumption. In addition, the

bartender at the Marriot told the U.S. Probation Officer that Minor clearly has an alcohol

problem.

C. THE COURT’S RULINGS

The Court previously found that Minor had violated the conditions of his bond but did not

revoke him at that time.

So, first of all, this court has to determine then whether to revoke bond in its
entirety and imprison Mr. Minor. In Mr. Minor's favor is the fact that for
three years he has been on bond. This court has not seen any violations of
any kind during this [two]-year period pending trial. That's in Mr. Minor's
favor. Also in Mr. Minor's favor, that during the long 13-week trial, this
court saw no violations from Mr. Minor. We started early and went late.
And he had to work with the defense team all over the weekends. And this
court observed no violations whatsoever on Mr. Minor's behalf. So all of
that is in his favor. And because those are in his favor, then the court is not
going to revoke bond and put Mr. Minor in jail, because those show that at
least Mr. Minor has been cognizant of the provisions required of him under
the bond. But then that doesn't satisfy the second element as to whether the
court is going to submit an order conditions to protect the public. And here
is how I get to this. What the court has in front of it is the offense report
which says at the time of the accident that Mr. Minor was poorly balanced,
slurred speech, highly intoxicated. The court also has before it some prior
brushes with the law or with reports from the law that indicate that he had
had some traffic mishaps, possibly under the influence of alcohol. Then the
court has before it this statement or this interview with a bartender
providing his observations. All this says is that there is a possibility that Mr.
Minor has a problem. This court has not reached that conclusion. But if
that is so, then this court owes a duty to the public to protect the public in
case Mr. Minor has such a problem and then is prone to enter a vehicle. So
this court is going to order some conditions which are aimed at making sure
that there are no problems.

Transcript of Court’s Ruling, pp. 70-71.

The Court ordered new conditions placed on Minor in order to protect the public: (1)

2
Minor was ordered not to drive; (2) Minor was to undergo evaluation for alcohol and/or

substance abuse by someone approved by the Court. Defense counsel were specifically

instructed to submit names to the Court of proposed evaluators; Minor would undergo an

appropriate course of treatment if necessary; (3) Minor was confined to his home pending the

evaluation; and (4) Minor was to avoid excessive consumption of alcohol.

The Court emphasized that Minor was prohibited from excessive alcohol consumption:

Now, the bond says that the person on bond will not drink to excess.
It's already there as far as I'm concerned. And in case that needs to be
clarified, which I don't think it does, it means that one does not imbibe any
alcohol so as to become intoxicated, slash, inebriated. And that is the
definition of excessive consumption of alcohol. So I did not go over that
because the condition of bond already forbids that. This is one of the factors
that again brings us here, the consumption of alcohol, which the government
contends was excessive on the occasion of the accident. So there will not be
any such, but, remember, I have also allowed probation the authority to take
urine screens on the presence of alcohol, and those tests will also indicate the
quantity of alcohol consumed, if any, which means then, Mr. Minor, it's
better not to consume any.

Transcript, p. 75

Now, let me speak to this matter of abstinence. I didn't specifically

say that in my order there has to be complete abstinence. The bond
condition says excessive use, which I equate with intoxication. Now, if -- Mr.
Minor, I don't know the answer, but if there is a problem, then someone then
whetted to alcohol will at some point want to take a swallow of it. I will find
that out when I get my medical report. But I wouldn't want to say that if you
imbibe at all in alcohol without becoming intoxicated that then should result
in a revocation. You understand what the bond condition says. The bond
condition says drink to excess. It merely means getting intoxicated. Now, I
also recognize that someone who has a problem with alcohol cannot take any
alcohol. So if you have a problem with alcohol, then you shouldn't take any,
because even to have a drop of alcohol on your lips, if you have a problem,
will be to excess, because the effect that a drop of alcohol would have on one
who has an alcoholic problem is different than that drop would have on one
who has no problem. So you have to be the judge of that. But if probation
comes by and then wants a random test and that test shows an excessive

3
 amount in your bloodstream or if it appears that you are under the influence
even though your bloodstream does not show an excessive amount but
probation can determine that you are under the influence unwarrantedly
which shows that you have a condition, then that will be a matter that will
bring us back here.

Transcript, p. 76 - 77.

Minor’s counsel did not submit new names for evaluation of Minor and instead submitted

the name of Dr. Robert Davis, who had performed the “evaluation” that the Court originally

rejected. The government had also objected to Dr. Davis, stating that he was not qualified

because his areas of expertise did not include evaluation and treatment for substance abuse. Dr.

Davis’ background is in the area of Mass Tort litigation claim evaluation and forensic evaluation

of law enforcement officers.1 However, Minor went forward with “treatment” by Dr. Davis

without the Court’s approval and then argued that the Court should not require him to undergo

evaluation and treatment by someone else. The government did not object further and the Court

permitted Dr. Davis to continue his “treatment” of Mr. Minor. An order was entered on

November 30, 2005, approving Dr. Davis and requiring bi-weekly reports to the Court as to

Minor’s status. The Court conducted in camera review of Minor’s course of treatment with

defense counsel present. The government waived participation in these conferences and any

request for these reports. The government has not been provided with those reports and has no

way of knowing even if they have been filed or what they contain.

1
See Acosta v. Master Maintenance, 192 F. Supp. 2d 577, (M.D. La. 2001) (Robert
Davis hired by plaintiffs’ attorneys in mass tort case to perform psychological tests on over 200
plaintiffs “in order to develop the fear and fright damages and to help the attorneys pick out their
bellwether plaintiffs.”)

4
II. THE PRESENT VIOLATIONS

A. MINOR’S INTOXICATION AT THE MARRIOT ON MARCH 6, 2006

The present matter is before the Court based on the petition filed by the U.S. Probation

Office. Two DEA Task Force Agents witnessed Paul Minor highly intoxicated on March 6,

2006, again in the bar of the Marriot Hotel in Jackson in direct violation of the bond and the

Court’s admonishing in November. A copy of each of their statements is attached for the Court’s

consideration. Both Agents state that Minor appeared to be very intoxicated or extremely

intoxicated. Both agents also state that he had trouble standing up and was swaying. Minor had

to be removed after making highly offensive comments to a female patron of the bar, and he was

escorted from the bar by the hotel security personnel. Receipts obtained by the government by

subpoena show that Minor had at least one glass of wine and four vodka drinks that night at the

Marriot.

All of this occurred a mere two blocks from the U.S. Courthouse and in the same bar that

was the subject of the November hearing.

B. MINOR’S CONVICTION IN BATON ROUGE AND HIS VIOLATION OF

THE PROBATION ORDER REQUIRING ABSTINENCE FROM
ALCOHOL.

In addition, Minor entered a negotiated plea on the charges against him in Baton Rouge in

January, 2006. He pled guilty to Reckless Driving , and entered a no contest plea to Failure to

Maintain Control. Apparently his plea bargain included a conditional dismissal of the DUI

charges against him, but Minor was sentenced on the Reckless Driving charge consistent with a

DUI conviction. The sentence provided for (1) substance abuse evaluation; (2) 16 hours of

community service; (3) DWI school; (4) a $300 fine; (5) Court costs; (6) 90 days of unsupervised

5
probation; and (7) refrain from all criminal activity, alcohol and drug use.

Minor’s sentence therefore required him to abstain from alcohol use. However, less than

40 days after that sentence, Minor was intoxicated in the Marriot Bar in Jackson in direct

violation of the Baton Rouge sentence.

III. REVOCATION AND DETENTION ARE APPROPRIATE.

Minor has clearly violated a condition of his release and is therefore subject to “a

revocation of release, an order of detention, and a prosecution for contempt of court.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3148 (a). In U.S. v. Campbell, 713 F.Supp. 220 (N.D.Tex.,1989) the court affirmed revocation

of a defendant’s bond and pre-trial detention based on her consumption of alcohol while out on

bond pending trial on federal charges. The court noted that the defendant’s history of alcohol use

made her a danger to the community and found that no set of conditions would reasonably assure

her compliance.

In this case, Minor has clearly violated the condition of his release requiring him to

refrain from excessive use of alcohol. In addition, Minor’s behavior shows that he cannot and

will not abide by the terms of his release - even after strong admonition by this Court in

November and constant monitoring of his treatment by the Court. Furthermore, even drinking at

all is a violation of the terms of his probation in Baton Rouge resulting from his conviction

relating to the accident. It should be clear to the Court at this stage that no set of conditions can

be imposed on Minor that will reasonably assure the safety of the community. He has already

injured someone else as a result of drunk driving and has recently been ejected from the Marriot

bar for being highly intoxicated and disorderly. The most appropriate course of action for this

Court is to revoke Minor’s bond and order him detained pending trial.

6
IV. CONCLUSION

Paul Minor should be treated no differently than any other criminal defendant before this

Court. For the second time in five months, he is before the Court for violating the terms of his

bond. Incredibly, he was highly intoxicated in the very same bar and within sight of the federal

courthouse while allegedly undergoing Court-supervised treatment for possible alcohol abuse. It

should be clear that there is no set of conditions that the Court can impose that would reasonably

assure the safety of the public.

It should also be clear that the current plan of treatment is not working and Minor is

flagrantly violating specific conditions of his bond which were re-emphasized after his last

alcohol-related incident. The very credibility of this Court is at stake, and the safety of the public

remains at risk so long as Paul Minor remains out on bond.

ANDREW LOURIE
Public Integrity Section

By: /s/ Dave Fulcher

DAVID H. FULCHER
Assistant United States Attorney
188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 500
Jackson, MS 39201

Peter Ainsworth Ruth R. Morgan

Deputy Chief for Litigation Assistant U.S. Attorney
Public Integrity Section 1575 20th Avenue
Criminal Division Gulfport, MS 39501
U.S. Department of Justice

7
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the above and foregoing has been
sent via electronic case filing system to:

Joe M. Hollomon Abbe David Lowell

P.O. Box 22683 Chadbourne & Parke, LLP
Jackson, MS 39225-2683 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
James F. Neal, Esq.
Neal and Harwell, PLC Brad Pigott
150 Fourth Ave, North Pigott, Reeves Johnson & Minor, P.A.
Suite 2000 P.O. Box 22725
Nashville, Tn 37219 Jackson, MS 39202

Michael W. Crosby, Esq. Dennis Sweet

2111 25th Avenue Sweet & Freese
Gulfport, Ms 39501 200 South Lamar Street, Suite 200
Jackson, MS 39201
George Lucas, Esq.
Federal Public Defender Office
200 South Lamar St, Suite 100-S
Jackson, MS

This the 3rd day of April, 2006.

/s/ Dave Fulcher

David H. Fulcher
Assistant U.S. Attorney