UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Criminal Action No. 23-0069-1 ISAAC ANTHONY THOMAS, (CKK) Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION (February 8, 2024)

Before the Court is Defendant Isaac Thomas’s [82] Motion (“Def.’s Mot.”), in

which he asks for the immediate release from confinement at the D.C. Jail. For the

following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s [82] Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Thomas was previously subject to the [9] Order Setting Conditions of

Release. See Order, ECF No. 9. Due to continued violations of various conditions

beginning in April 2023, the Government filed a [33] Motion to Revoke Release Order.

After a revocation hearing and briefing, the Court granted the Government’s [33]

Motion on August 28, 2023. See Mem. Op. & Order, ECF No. 50. In its opinion, the

Court discussed Defendant Thomas’s various violations of his conditions of release

including regarding housing, marijuana use, and a mental health evaluation and related

medical and mental health releases. As for housing, Defendant Thomas was required,

1 according to his [9] Conditions of Release, to maintain a residence that Pretrial Services

Agency (“PSA”) could monitor after having initially assessed its appropriateness.

However, at that time PSA was unable to approve any living arrangement for Defendant.

Id. at 5. Ultimately, the Court found by clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2), that Defendant Thomas violated conditions of his

release and that he was unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of conditions

of release.

. The Court ordered that his release be revoked and remanded him to

the custody of the United States Marshal Service.

In November 2023, Defendant Thomas filed a [73] Motion for Bond, asking for

release from confinement. The Government opposed this Motion. See ECF No. 74. The

Court denied Defendant’s [73] Motion, finding that he did not present any evidence that

he would abide with the required condition of release regarding adequate housing, as the

most recent information from PSA indicated that he did not have a place to live. Mem.

Op. & Order, ECF No. 78. While the Court’s opinion focused on a lack of adequate

housing, the Court also discussed Defendant Thomas’s marijuana use, stating that the fact

Defendant indicated that he no longer wishes to use medical marijuana did not convince

the Court that he will comply in light of his previous, repeated noncompliance and,

additionally, the choice to not use marijuana was available to him previously.

.

As for his mental health evaluation, it was completed after he was in custody and the

Court had ordered District of Columbia Department of Behavioral Health, Pretrial and

Assessment Branch to conduct such evaluation; prior to his detention, Defendant failed to

2 cooperate with Court orders to receive the necessary mental health assessments and

provide required releases.

at 3–4.

Defendant Thomas again moves to be released from confinement. See generally

Def.’s Mot. He identifies Mr. and Mrs. Marden as offering housing. See

. The

Court briefly discussed this Motion at a status hearing on December 21, 2023 and ordered

PSA to file a report addressing Defendant’s proposed housing and other conditions that

would need to be in place. See [84] Order.

PSA’s Pretrial Compliance Report indicates that they were able to complete a

home investigation at the Marden’s residence in Michigan. See ECF No. 87 (“PSA

Report”) at 2. PSA indicates that both Mr. and Mrs. Marden “affirmed they would allow

and cooperate with unannounced home contacts and the removal of their firearms.”

They have strict rules for Defendant, including that he obtains employment while

residing at the residence. Id.; see also Def.’s Mot. at 17 (Mrs. Marden “emphasized that

she was emphatically clear with Thomas that the rules of the house consist of no alcohol,

smoking, and specifically marijuana regardless of a prescription.”). PSA concluded that

the Marden’s residence was suitable for Defendant. Report at 2.

The Court discussed Defendant’s pending motion again at the status hearing on

January 23, 2024. See Minute Order, Jan. 25, 2024. At the hearing, Defendant indicated

that he has been offered potential employment if released. The Court will now proceed

with its analysis of the [82] Motion.

3 II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to the Bail Reform Act, a court may reconsider prior bond determinations

based upon new information bearing on the pretrial release issue. See

(f)(2)(B) (permitting court to reopen bond hearing if court finds that “information

exists which was not known to the movant at the time of the hearing and that has a

material bearing on the issue whether there are conditions of release that will reasonably

assure the appearance of such person as required and the safety of any other person and

the community.”); see also

§ 3148(b) (“If the judicial officer finds that there are

conditions of release that will assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger to the

safety of any other person or the community, and that the person will abide by such

conditions, the judicial officer shall treat the person in accordance with the provisions of

section 3142 of this title and may amend the conditions of release accordingly.”). “New

and material information… must consist of truly changed circumstances, something

unexpected, or a significant event,” United States v. Lee,

, 5 (D.D.C.

2020) (KBJ), and “must relate in some significant or essential way to the decision

whether to detain,” United States v. Worrell, No. 1:21-CR-00292-RCL,

, at *9 (D.D.C. June 9, 2021), appeal dismissed, No. 21-3040,

(D.C. Cir. Sept. 15, 2021) (citation omitted)).

Here, the Court is satisfied that Defendant Thomas presents new information that

indicates appropriate conditions of release that assure his appearance, the safety of others

and the community, and with which he will comply.

4 First, as for housing, Defendant Thomas has presented an adequate living

arrangement. He explains that a “family friend has stepped up to the table and offered to

open their home to Mr. Thomas,” an offer which was not previously available. Def.’s

Mot. at 15. As explained above, PSA has found the Marden family’s residence to be a

suitable placement for Defendant if released. See Report at 2.

As for Defendant’s mental health evaluation, he explains that he was “advised in a

certain way, by prior counsel” that included “wrong and inaccurate advice…, which

fueled his poor decisions.” Def.’s Mot. at 7. Therefore, Defendant explains, his current

understanding of Court orders regarding his mental health is information that was not

known to him earlier.

At the January status hearing, PSA indicated that, if released,

they would recommend adding the following to Defendant’s conditions to release: mental

health evaluation and potential treatment, substance abuse evaluation and potential

treatment, and an order indicating that the Defendant Thomas must sign all appropriate

releases regarding his mental and physical health, as ordered by the Court.

Regarding his marijuana use, Defendant explains that he promises to forgo

medical marijuana entirely. Def.’s Mot. at 16. He continues that he has not been able to

use medical marijuana while at the D.C. Jail, but instead has been prescribed other pain

medication.

His “new proposed housing option also comes with strict instructions

that smoking is not tolerated while at the Marden’s residence,” which specifically

includes “marijuana regardless of a prescription.”

at 16–17. At the status hearing in

January, Defense counsel reiterated that Defendant has affirmed that he will not be using

medical marijuana. PSA for Michigan indicated that the facility that would conduct the

5 mental health evaluation could issue a referral if Defendant needs continue with

prescription pain medication.

In light of this new information, the Court finds that Defendant has satisfied the

standard set forth in the Bail Reform Act,

(f)(2)(B). Defendant has

presented new and material information related to his housing, mental health, and

marijuana use. The Court finds that under § 3148(b) and § 3142, considering the nature

and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against Defendant,

his history and characteristics, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person

or the community, there are conditions of release that can reasonably assure his

appearance and the safety of others.

The Court will release Defendant Subject to conditions of release similar to those

in his prior [9] Conditions of Release, with some additions. As was discussed at the

status hearing, PSA advocated for the inclusion of additional conditions. This includes a

zero tolerance condition, such that if Defendant Thomas violates any condition of release,

he will have to appear before this Court for a revocation hearing. The Government also

noted an open warrant for Defendant for a misdemeanor in Michigan and asked that any

order setting conditions of release take that warrant into consideration as well.

III. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant Thomas’s [82] Motion,

subject to the conditions of release set forth in a forthcoming order to include a zero

tolerance condition and that Defendant undergo mental health assessment and treatment

as directed by PSA, sign all releases of information for PSA to obtain and report

6 treatment compliance, provide documentation of any prescribed medications to PSA,

refrain from using marijuana, and clear outstanding warrants and provide proof for PSA,

in addition to other more standard conditions of release (e.g., not obtain a passport, not

possess a firearm, etc.).

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

7