Case 3:21-cr-30054-SPM Document 15 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-CR-30054
`
`
`vs.
`
`JOSEPH ALBERT FUCHS, III,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`ORDER OF DETENTION
`
`BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
`
`This case came before the Court on May 3, 2021 for a detention hearing. The
`
`Government moved for detention on the basis that the Defendant posed a danger to the
`
`community and that this case is subject to the rebuttable presumption that no condition
`
`or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the Defendant or
`
`the safety of the community (See Doc. 5). The Defendant argued that he should be released
`
`on bond. The pretrial services office interviewed the Defendant on April 26, 2021 and
`
`completed a bail report following the interview. The pretrial services office recommends
`
`the Defendant be detained pending trial.
`
`Following proffers from both counsel, the Court took the matter under
`
`advisement. After careful consideration of the proffers from both parties, and the factual
`
`background provided by the pretrial services report, the Court concludes that there is no
`
`combination of conditions of release that will reasonably assure the safety of any other
`
`person and the community. Accordingly, the Defendant will be ordered detained.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cr-30054-SPM Document 15 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #26
`
`The Court begins with the rebuttable presumption of detention. The presumption
`
`can be rebutted by the production of some evidence, but it does not disappear from the
`
`analysis. United States v. Dominguez, 783 F.2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). Rather, the
`
`presumption remains in the case “as an evidentiary finding militating against release, to
`
`be weighed along with other evidence relevant to factors listed in § 3142(g).” Id. Here, the
`
`Court finds that the Defendant has proffered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption
`
`(e.g. the home plan outlined in the pretrial report). However, the presumption remains a
`
`factor for this Court to consider and this factor certainly weighs against release and in
`
`favor of detention.
`
`Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), the Court considers the nature and circumstances of the
`
`offense charged, including whether the offense involves, among other things, a minor
`
`victim. Here, this factor cuts heavily in favor of detention. The case involves a minor
`
`victim. Specifically, the Defendant is charged with: (1) Coercion and Enticement of a
`
`Minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b); (2) Travel with Intent to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct
`
`under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b); and (3) Engaging in Illicit Sexual Conduct in a Foreign Place
`
`under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) and (e). The nature and circumstances of the offenses charged
`
`are significant; the allegations are that the Defendant traveled from Southern Illinois to
`
`the Philippines to have sex with an individual who he knew to be a minor and that he
`
`did in fact have sex with the minor while in the Philippines. In short, the Government
`
`characterized the instant offense as a “hands on” offense with a live victim.
`
`The Court also considers the weight of the evidence, which appears to be quite
`
`strong against the Defendant. While the Bail Reform Act is clear that nothing within it
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cr-30054-SPM Document 15 Filed 05/03/21 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #27
`
`shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of innocence, see 18 U.S.C. §
`
`3142(j), the weight of the evidence remains a factor to consider. The Court is mindful of
`
`both of these considerations. Nevertheless, the Government provided a detailed outline
`
`during the detention hearing regarding the weight of the evidence. The Government
`
`proffered that the Defendant was encountered at O’Hare Airport in Chicago, Illinois
`
`preparing to depart on a second trip to the Philippines. According to the Government,
`
`the Defendant submitted to an interview at that time, and provided some concerning
`
`admissions. The Government also summarized the nature of the communication between
`
`the Defendant and the minor victim, obtained through a search warrant of the
`
`Defendant’s Facebook account. Additionally, the Government outlined the Defendant’s
`
`travel records corroborate their theory and confirm their timeline. In sum, this factor cuts
`
`in favor of detention and against release.
`
`The factors listed under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3) cut in favor of release. The
`
`Defendant has no criminal history and does have a viable home plan in the area. The
`
`Defendant, although retired now, had stable employment for 30 years as a special agent
`
`for the U.S. Postal Service. The Defendant also noted that he has been aware of this
`
`investigation for some time and has not fled or acted in a manner to show he cannot be
`
`supervised.
`
`In sum, when the Court considers and weighs the proffers from each party; the
`
`factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3142, including the rebuttable presumption; the Court concludes
`
`that there is no combination of conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of any
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cr-30054-SPM Document 15 Filed 05/03/21 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #28
`
`other person or the community. The Government’s motion to detain (Doc. 5) is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`DATED: May 3, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Mark A. Beatty
`
`MARK A. BEATTY
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
