Case 1:22-cr-00352-JSR Document 100 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`=
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATE
`
`
`
`Defenda
`
`
`
`
` EK LACEWELL 1]
`
`
`
`22-cr-352 (JSR)
`
`ORDER
`
`
`JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.:
`
` Defendant Rahmiek Lacewell moves
`
`for
`
`reconsideration of
`
`this
`
`Court’s
`
`July 5,
`
`
`2022 detention order. After hearing argument
`
`on
`
`defendant’s motion on Thursday, November 10, 2022,
`
`the Court reserved
`
`judgment. Of greatest concern to the Court is the potential danger to
`
`the community the Government contends Mr. Lacewell would pose if
`
`released. Although it
`
`is
`
`a close call,
`
`the Court
`
`concludes
`
`the
`
`Government has not met
`
`its burden to demonstrate
`
`by clear
`
`and
`
`convincing evidence that no conditions exist
`
`that could reasonably
`
`
`assure the safety of the community. See 18 U.S.C.
`
`
`§ 3142(f) (2) (B).
`
`The most compelling argument against
`
`release is evidence the
`
`Government presented that Mr. Lacewell, as a member of
`
`the alleged
`
`
`conspiracy at the heart of this case, participated in an incident of
`
`
`violence and intimidation against employees of a housing contractor.
`
`The overall
`
`sequence of events
`
`
`that
`
`the Government describes
`
`a
`
`disturbing one,
`
`in which other members of the alleged conspiracy parked
`
`
`a car across an alley so as to prevent the contractor’s employees from
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00352-JSR Document 100 Filed 11/11/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`leaving, subsequently assaulted one of the contractor’s employees, and
`
`even took a photograph of that employee’s identification card so as
`
`
`
`to intimidate him from going to the police. Although there is no
`
`evidence that Mr. Lacewell personally assaulted the employee,
`
`the
`
`Government contends that, shortly before the violence took place, Mr.
`
` LL
`
`Lacewell arrived at
`
`the
`
`scene
`
`and took off his orange
`
`company
`
`sweatshirt,
`
`leaving on only an all-black outfit underneath.
`
`The
`
`Government also claims it knows from witness accounts that members of
`
`the alleged conspiracy donned all-black outfits such as the one Mr.
`
`
`Lacewell was wearing prior to displays of force or violence. And,
`
`the
`
`
`
`Government adds,
`
`along with other members of the alleged conspiracy, also dressed in
`
`
`
`a video of the ensuing incident shows Mr. Lacewell,
`
` black,
`
`looking on while the contractor’s employee was assaulted and
`
`intimidated.
`
`
`While Mr. Lacewell disputes the Government’s account of
`
`these
`
`events,
`
`the Government’s account suffices,
`
`in the Court’s view,
`
`to
`
`establish that Mr. Lacewell was at
`
`least
`
`a
`
`tacit participant
`
`in a
`
`
`the Court also finds notable
`disturbing and violent incident. However,
`
`
`that the Government -- despite the
`extensive amounts of evidence and
`
`discovery it has amassed in this case,
`
`and despite its conclusory
`
`claim that Mr. Lacewell served as an “enforcer” -- has not pointed to
`
`any other
`
`incident
`
`in which Mr. Lacewell
`
`engaged, directly or
`
`indirectly,
`
`in violence.
`
`The Government also relies on Mr. Lacewell’s criminal history.
`
`c
`
`
`
`
`While Mr. Lacewell was convicted of serious offenses as a young man -
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00352-JSR Document 100 Filed 11/11/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`- including statutory sex offenses dating from 2004 when Lacewell was
`18,
`a reckless endangerment conviction dated from 2010 when Lacewell
`was 25,
`and a drug distribution conviction dated from 2014 when
`
`Lacewell was 29 -- Lacewell, now 37, does not appear to have had any
`convictions in his 30’s other than one in connection with his operation
`of a motor vehicle without
`a
`license,
`for which he was discharged
`without punishment. While the Government also points to evidence from
`2014 that Mr. Lacewell was a member of the violent “Bloods” gang, Mr.
`Lacewell contends he has taken serious steps toward turning his life
`around,
`and the record,
`including his evidence of recent employment
`and of his strong ties to his girlfriend and their infant child,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appears to support as much.
`Nonetheless, if the Court’s only alternative to detention was to
`release Mr. Lacewell without restrictions,
`it might
`find detention
`
`necessary to protect the safety of the community. However,
`the Court
`concludes that conditions exist such as will reasonably assure both
`the safety of the community and Mr. Lacewell’s appearance at trial.
`Specifically,
`the Court orders that Mr. Lacewell be released from
`detention once the following conditions are satisfied or arranged:
` £
`e
`Imposition of a recognizance bond in the amount of $250,000
`signed
`and
`guaranteed by
`six
`financially responsible
`
`persons.
`residence of Mr. Lacewell’s
`the
`e Home
`incarceration at
`father, Timothy Lacewell,
`to be subject
`to full electronic
`
`monitoring. Defendant shall not be allowed to leave the
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00352-JSR Document 100 Filed 11/11/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`place of home
`
`incarceration except
`
`for necessary meetings
`
`with counsel or medical appointments, and then only with the
`
`express pre-approval of Pretrial Services and within the
`
`
`southern or Bastern Districts of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`e Defendant is to have no contact with any member of the Bloods
`
`
`gang, any defendant in this case, anyone convicted of or who
`
`has pending criminal
`
`charges against
`
`them,
`
`or
`
`any EMS
`
`companies, public adjustors, or their employees.
`
`
`e Defendant
`
`shall
`
`surrender
`
`any passport or other
`
`travel
`
`documents to Pretrial Services, and shall not obtain any new
`
`passport or any international travel document.
`
`e Defendant shall not possess a firearm, destructive device,
`
`or other weapon.
`
`
`e Defendant shall submit to periodic drug tests as determined
`
`by Pretrial
`
`services,
`
`and,
`
`if
`
`any of
`
`the results
`
`are
`
`positive,
`
`to appropriate treatment.
`
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`New York, NY
`November /f, 2022
`
`
`JED S{
`RAKOFF,
`OYS.D.Jd.
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

PTO Denying Access

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket