Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2294 Filed 01/03/25 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Michael Lacey,
`
`
`No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH
`
`ORDER
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Michael Lacey has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of his Bail
`
`Conditions. (Doc. 2270). The Government has filed a Response. (Doc. 2276). The Court
`
`will deny the Defendant’s Motion.
`
`
`
`First, as recognized by the Defendant, both parties were given an opportunity to
`
`inform the Court of their respective proposed release conditions. (Doc. 2270 at 2–3). At
`
`a hearing on Defendant Lacey’s release conditions, the parties were also provided an
`
`opportunity to be heard on their respective release condition requests. (Id. at 3). After
`
`considering the parties’ respective positions, the Court orally pronounced that pending his
`
`appeal, Defendant Lacey be placed on a curfew, and specified that “during the daytime
`
`hours he can engage in community services, church services, meeting with his counsel,
`
`health, mental health appointments and so on, but that during the evening hours I would
`
`suggest from 10:00 to at least 6:00 a.m. he is to be confined to his residence.” (Doc. 2269
`
`at 13). The Court then clarified that it was imposing home detention, without location
`
`monitoring, that exempts his attendance at church, medical or legal appointments and court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2294 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`appearances. (Id. at 13–14). Upon being informed that Defendant Lacey has two
`
`residences, the Court then permitted him to inform the pretrial services as to which
`
`residence he would be located. (Id. at 14–15).1
`
`
`
`Second, before the Court imposed Defendant Lacey’s release conditions, it observed
`
`that circumstances had changed since the Court initially pronounced his bail conditions,
`
`including that there is now a case pending in California against him, a pending sentence
`
`and a large fine against him that this Court imposed, and that he is also facing a retrial by
`
`the Government in this Court on a number of counts. (Id. at 9–10). So, the Court stated
`
`“the posture of Mr. Lacey has now changed. The presumption of innocence has now been
`
`gone by the jury’s verdict. And so I do find that there are circumstances here by Mr.
`
`Lacey’s own account that require that he undergo at least a mental health assessment. And
`
`that dependent on the mental health assessment, that he participate in a mental health
`
`treatment program as directed by his reviewing officer.” (Id.) In imposing these and the
`
`other related release conditions, including assessment for alcohol and/or substance use and
`
`firearms prohibitions, the Court considered the Defendant’s conviction, his pending retrial,
`
`and information gathered in the presentence report as to his mental, physical, and financial
`
`health. All of these matters had substantially changed from his pre-trial release status.
`
`
`
`Third, generally, the Court “will ordinarily deny a motion for consideration of an
`
`Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that
`
`could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” See LRCiv
`
`7.2. Nothing in the Defendant’s Motion reaches this threshold. Rather, he states that
`
`“[h]ad counsel understood that the Court intended to deprive Mr. Lacey of the ability to
`
`leave his home . . . he would have, at the very least, made a record about why that condition
`
`has no support in the record.” (Doc. 2270 at 6). But whether Mr. Lacey’s bail conditions
`
`were to include home detention was an issue that was clearly before the Court. It was
`
`raised both in the pleadings filed prior to Defendant Lacey’s release hearing, and then
`
`
`1 The Court also orally stated that it “should have some clarity in terms of what the
`properties are that are listed as part of his bond agreement.” The Court reiterates that the
`Defendant shall provide the Court with the addresses of these two properties.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2294 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`discussed at length during the release hearing.
`
`Nothing in Defendant Lacey’s Motion provides this Court with reason to reconsider
`
`its prior Order. Accordingly,
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant Lacey’s Motion for Reconsideration
`
`(Doc. 2270).
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within seven (7) days of this Order, Defendant
`
`Lacey is to file under seal, the addresses of the two properties that are listed as part of his
`
`2018 pre-trial bond agreement.
`
`Dated this 3rd day of January, 2025.
`
`
`Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`