top of page
Search

June 19, 2019. "He’s on probation already when this allegedly happened so, I’m just not convinced at this point. I wouldn’t change the bond myself". Judge Reeds

Writer's picture: Justice for Denis PrekaJustice for Denis Preka

Updated: Jan 29

PROBABLE CAUSE CONFERENCE BEFORE THE HONORABLE TRAVIS M. REEDS THE COURT:  People versus Nicholas Remington, 2019-2619 Wednesday, June 19, 2019 – 11:14 a.m. Novi, Michigan

 

MS. HAND:  Good morning, your Honor.  Beth Hand appearing on behalf of the People.  

MR. BONDY:  Good morning, your Honor.  Spencer Bondy appearing as co-counsel on behalf of Mr. Remington, your Honor.

 

MR. ROCKIND:  Neil Rockind co-counsel on behalf of Nicholas Remington, your Honor.

 

THE COURT: How can I be of service?

 

MR. ROCKIND: Judge, today is the date and time scheduled for a probable cause conference. We had just received discovery, we have talked to our client a bit, we’re seeking a waiver of the 21-day rule. We were seeking an adjournment of the probable cause conference to give us time to got through the discovery.

 

THE COURT: What in the world is going on with this photographic situation here?

 

UNKNOWN WOMAN: This is my son.

 

THE COURT: Ma’am, why don’t you please have a seat, okay?

 

UNKNOWN WOMAN: I’m not allowed to have this of my son? THE COURT:  We don’t want anything to -– ma’am, I don’t want you to –-

         

UNKNOWN WOMAN:  I want to show you who’s my son.

         

THE COURT: -- ma’am, I don’t want you to do anything that would disrupt the proceedings.  Please, just have a seat, okay?

 

UNKNOWN WOMAN:  Okay, you can’t stop me for doing this.

         

THE COURT:  Please just have a seat.  I’m sorry, Mr.Rockind, go ahead.

         

MR. ROCKIND:  Judge, I’m sorry, I didn’t even know what you were saying. I didn’t even know what you –- what you were talking about when I was –-

 

UNKNOWN WOMAN:  This is my son.

 

THE COURT:  Oh, I apologize, you’ve seen now.

 

MR. ROCKIND:  I –- I see it now, yes.

 

THE COURT:  The record should reflect that there’s a woman holding up two 2 foot by 3 foot photographs.  I just don’t want anything to disrupt the proceedings.  Well, let’s just move about our business.

 

MS. HAND I understand that, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  So, what would you like to do, Mr. Rockind, you’d like an extension?

 

MR. ROCKIND:  Yes, Judge.  We have –-

 

MS. HAND: Your Honor, I’m asking that the Court set this matter for preliminary examination.

I don’t believe that another probable cause conference is fruitful. THE COURT: Okay.  

 

MS. HAND: I’m –unless Mr. Rockind says that there’s a –any chance that this is not going to exam which I don’t believe to be the case given that the charge and the penalty and coming back here for another PCC I don’t – it does –it serves no purpose because I don’t think there’s gonna be a waiver.

 

THE COURT:  In other words, do you object to an if I set the preliminary exam beyond the 21-day rule PCC?

 

MS. HAND:  Oh no, I don’t have –- no I don’t have a problem setting the preliminary exam beyond the 21 days. MR. ROCKIND: Okay so, here’s –- here’s my issue. The police and prosecutors and again I don’t know the –- the lengths that –- of and the amount of communication between them before the matter was presented for a warrant and I’m not privy to that. But, there’s a substantial amount of time that goes into developing this case just from a cursory look at the investigation there appears to have been at least one search warrant maybe more. Their appears to be a rather voluminous record of printout of snapchat communications and then there looks like there’s four or five different discs and they’re gonna be interviews with potential –- with potential witnesses. I presume some who may testify at the preliminary examination. At this point I have no way of knowing whether I’m going to at a probable cause conference need to come here before your Honor. I –- I can foresee a potential a couple of issues, a couple discovery issues that we may have to address and so what I don’t want to do-

THE COURT: Through motion practice you mean?

 

MR. ROCKIND: What’s that?

 

THE COURT: Through motion practice?

 

MR. ROCKIND: That could be the case or it could be the case that when I look at some of the discovery issues that as if – if we have a –- a preliminary examination date and we’re looking through some of the potential discovery issues and there’s some things missing we may need to come back before the Court for a probable cause conference to address those –- those discovery issues. I have no way of knowing. What I know right now is that at this particular moment my client is charged with an –- an –- an exceedingly and extremely serious offense. There’s no prejudice to the state whatsoever by giving us time or the Court to schedule another probable cause conference so that we know and can begin to wrap our arms around this case. We have an obligation to investigate the case. We have an obligation to investigate and –- and –- and communicate and speak with witnesses.  We have and oblig –- obligation to research legal issues.

         

THE COURT:  I don’t think any of that’s being challenged by Ms. Hand, but my thought was –-

         

MR. ROCKIND:  -- I –-

         

THE COURT:  -- my thought was why don’t I just set the exam out far enough into the future to give you an opportunity to conduct any sort of discovery request.

         

MR. ROCKIND:  - I don’t have prob –

         

MS. HAND:  Thank you, Judge and –and for the

         

MR. ROCKIND:  you know I don’t have a problem with that what I don’t want to do is I what I’m –what I’m concerned about Ms. Hand and I and I’ll obviously ultimately you’re the –the final arbiter on – on timelines, but what I don’t want to do is find us having a preliminary examination date that is that the State thinks is quote far – far it’s too far out and we view as not enough time for us to be able to actually work the case up.

         

THE COURT:  All right. Well, let’s see we haven’t gotten to the –any rub yet.  What would you like to say, Ms. Hand?

         

MS. HAND:  I was just gonna say that Mr. Rockind and I are both experienced attorneys any discovery issues he has my cellphone he has my email.  We can work that out, we don’t need to come back for a discovery issue.  If there’s something he feels that he’s entitled to that I’m not gonna give then he’s gonna have to file a motion anyways.

 

THE COURT: Okay. So, from –- let’s get through the first part. The procedural issue first. Is your client ready to tender over that, and he’s prepared to waive the 21-day rule.


MR. ROCKIND:  He is, your Honor and –-


THE COURT:  All right.


MR. ROCKIND:  -- I’ve discussed that, we’ve gone over that, and he’s prepared to waive the 21-day rule.


THE COURT: Thank you. Young man would you please state your name for me and spell your last name for the Court Recorder?


MR. ROCKIND:  Can I stand next to him, Judge?  Would that be okay?


THE COURT:  Of course.  Absolutely.


THE DEFENDANT:  Nicholas Remington.  R-e-m-i-n-g-t- o-n.


THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Remington, you have a statutory right to have your preliminary examination conducted within 21 days of the date of your arraignment.  Have you heard the attorneys and I discussing scheduling this case out into the future?

 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

 

THE COURT: That would necessitate me, sir moving this beyond that 21-day window. So, first of all do you understand you have this right to have your exam within 21 days?

 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.


THE COURT: Is it your intention then to waive that right voluntarily so that I can schedule this out further into the future so your attorney can get all of his paperwork and so on?

 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

 

THE COURT: All right. Has anyone threatened you in any way to try to make you give up that right?

 

THE DEFENDANT: No.

 

THE COURT: Are you doing that of your own free will?

 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I will accept the waiver of the 21-day rule. All right. So, my thought would be what if we started out by setting the preliminary examination and it  is a capital case so I’m gonna try to take that into account understanding the Defendant’s incarcerated as well. What if we set the preliminary exam for August 1st, that’s a Thursday? That’s a significant window of time, it’s significantly more  than a month.

 

MS. HAND:  That’d be in the morning or afternoon, your Honor?

 

THE COURT:  I could do it at your pleasure.

 

MS. HAND:  Could we do it in the afternoon?

 

THE COURT:  Does that work for you, Mr. Rockind?

         

MR. ROCKIND:  I’m just trying to check my calendar, your Honor.

 

THE COURT: Sure, please take your time. I could also do August 29th again a Thursday morning or afternoon, but afternoon would be better.

 

MR. ROCKIND:   So, I have –-

 

THE COURT:  August –-

 

MR. ROCKIND:  -- a –- I have a personal matter that I –- I think will take up August 1st and August 2nd. THE COURT: Okay. What about the 29th? Does that work for you, Ms. Hand?

 

MS. HAND:  It is, it’s a little –- a little bit further, Judge then I would like to a –-


THE COURT:  I –- I understand, but I’m trying to be as accommodating as I can it’s only a couple more weeks. Does that work Mr. Rockind?

 

MR. ROCKIND:  I –- I have a trial that day, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  All right.

 

MR. ROCKIND: Could –- could we go –- could we do it on August 26th.


THE COURT:  We could do it in the afternoon on the 26th?

 

MS. HAND:  I’m available that day, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  I’m sorry.  You are or not?

 

MS. HAND:  I am.

 

THE COURT:  How bout –- okay, how bout the afternoon of the 26th. I have a civil call but it should pretty light that day and I’ll –-

 

MR. ROCKIND:  Yes, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  -- talk to my clerk and ask them to make it even lighter.

 

MR. ROCKIND:  Okay.  Thank you.

 

THE COURT:  So, how bout August 26th? Would you like to do 1:30 or 1:00?

 

MS. HAND:  We could do one o’clock.

 

MR. ROCKIND:  We can do one –- one o’clock is fine, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  1:00 p.m.  Any other issues we need to address?

 

MR. ROCKINDI want to address the issue of bond, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  Go ahead.

MR. ROCKIND:  Judge, so the -– the bond was set at $1,000,000 cash surety no 10 percent I want to give the Court and I’m moving the Court to –- to modify that bond.  I want to give the Court a little bit of background that –- about the actual arraignment.  When I was contacted by his –-Nicholas’s mother, Jenny Remington who’s present in court we -– there wasn’t a charge in the case yet the matter was still under investigation as far as we knew. We learned the morning of his arraignment that he was actually being even charged and that Nicholas was being –- was gonna be arraigned that morning. We tried to –- to make an appearance. I actually filed my appearance with the court via fax before the arraignment. I had one of my associates actually come over to the court with the intention of appearing at that arraignment with the idea of being able to make a –- make a credible and  substantial case for reasonable bond and unfortunately by the time that the matter was –- by the time my associate arrived I think he spoke with one of your clerk’s first then he went to the front counter and then he ended up being with the mag –- tried to go into the magistrate’s courtroom and he learned that matter had already –- that Nicholas had already been arraigned.


THE COURT: Okay.


MR. ROCKIND: And I –- I mention that because there  is currently as your Honor probably knows there’s the –- the Michigan Indigent Defense Committee, the MIDC commission which is proposing rules which have not made been adopted by –- by all courts in all counties, but it’s proposing rules to ensure that people like Nicholas and others have representation at arraignments. For years we’ve treated arraignments as though they’re not part of the adversarial process. That a lawyer can appear, but one need not be actually appointed or one need not be secured and I think that that –- that puts someone like Nicholas at a substantial disadvantage. It puts the magistrate at a disadvantage because all the magistrate has is a –- a swear to which is a presentation of facts by the police which of course are designed to establish probable cause. There’s no interest in establishing any at a swear to proceeding any information that is favorable to him or anything about his background or his family or his family history of his ability in his life or what his parents do or who could vouch for him or anything else of that sort at that time. On top of that a lawyer, me, Mr. Bondy could have been Mr. Lewis our other co-counsel could have made a –- a presentation to the magistrate at that time to begin to put some of that information into the record for the magistrate to know -- be fully informed so that she could make a completely informed decision about what a reasonable and appropriate bond would be. Instead what happened was –- was a bond was set that is in my estimation and in my looking back over 25 years of practice which is really the equivalent of no bond. You might as well set bond at $50,000,000. $50,000,0000 or $10,000,000 or $1,000,000. It’s a statement that someone’s making. It’s not a bond. That is a declaration. It’s a declaration that someone is making that this is a serious case and the person who’s charged should be locked up and I’ve heard that before. I’ve heard magistrates or police officers say this guy should be locked up. That’s not the purpose of bond. The purpose of bond is two-fold as your Honor knows to ensure that Mr. Remington will appear in court and he has no history despite having some contacts with the legal system, he has no history of nonappearance. He has a history of appearing in court each and every time he’s been ordered to appear. His contact with the court I think are –- are important for your Honor to be aware of. He has as far as I’m aware he has a prior trespassing offense in the 35th District Court in -– before Judge Plakas that’s as your Honor knows as low of level misdemeanor as is possible. He’s at 7411 status from before the Oakland County Circuit Court for a possession of a controlled substance analogue that’s not even a –- that’s a non-public record as your Honor knows that, and he an MDOP under a misdemeanor I think it’s under $200.00, but it’s an MDOP misdemeanor which he received 6 months’ probation and completed probation. That – that’s what I’m aware of. The fact of the matter is is that he has no record of nonappearance, so in terms of –- of securing his appearance in –- in court there are several factors that the magistrate I think should have been aware of and I -- because I didn’t take part I think you should be aware of.

 

THE COURT: Okay.

 

MR. ROCKIND: This establishes his record in court. The second is is that when this incident occurred it was this tragic incident in which a young man lost his life due to a drug overdose which is –- which is sad and tragic, horrible. Mr. Remington was aware of that. He was aware of from what I understand there were allegations swirling among different people in –- in the community that he was somehow tied to it. He actually had to make an appearance at a probation meeting in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court with the Washtenaw County Probation Officer which he did on March 26th in which he was surprised to discover that there were Novi Police Officers who actually appeared and took part and attempted to ask him some questions at the –- at the –- at that meeting from March 26th and the allegations and the insinuations from the police were clear. The insinuations were that Nicholas had delivered drugs to this young man and he had died. Now, at that point there’s every opportunity in the world as your Honor knows for Nicholas to flee to take off from the jurisdiction to evade prosecution none of which he did. He was then directed to reappear at the probation department within a week which he did again at which point he was taken into custody for a probation violation related to this incident. The incident being that he was actually at a -– a location where others were using drugs or where drugs were present as I understand it and Mr. Bondy or Mr. Lewis could speak more to that cause they were his – their firm represented him in that probation violation matter. But, during that period of time he didn’t flee he didn’t take off as I understand it also at that point he had posted bond, appeared before the –- the court and posted –- posted bond and was advised to reappear for a probation violation case and again he actually appeared as he was ordered to do in the Oakland County Circuit Court and received his sentence which he as I understand, that he’s currently serving it if I have the history correct. So, there’s –- there’s a substantial record of appearance in court and appearance in court on minor matters, appearance in court where –- where he’s facing potential probation violation and incarceration and –- and –- and in this specific case his substantial record of appearance in court know –- and knowing that he could have been or at least was under investigation for an allegation of causing a death of another due to drug delivery.

 

THE COURT: What sentence is he serving from the Oakland Circuit Court?

 

MR. ROCKIND:  I believe he has a 90-day sentence, he’s on 7411 status it was the - the judge-

 

THE COURT:  So, probation –-

 

MR. ROCKIND:  -- as I understand it was –- and –-and--

 

THE COURT:  -- probation continues?

 

MR. ROCKIND: -- and probation.

 

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

 

MR. ROCKIND: As I understand it and I think that that’s important. That addresses one factor for appearance or non-appearance and I think the record is overwhelmingly in favor of Mr. Remington -- he will appear in court or if there is a bond posted.


THE COURT: Okay.


MR. ROCKIND: The second factor is whether or not he poses a danger of –- to the public and again I wasn’t present at the arraignment or none of my staff were. I wish we were. I would suggest to the Court that you take a look at the factors that the Court has to consider. I know the Court knows them well under 6.10(C) is the requirement that the Court first consider a personal bond and the second is under 6.106(D) regarding conditional release and the conditions, the conditions really when you look at the one’s that we are aware of, the conditions all I think work substantially in favor and suggest that there should be a substantial reduction in the setting bond. For example, he has -- we look –- we disclosed his record, his record of appearance. I’ve disclosed to the Court that we aren’t aware of him having any mental condition. He was in school as a fulltime student at the University of Michigan. He could resume schooling if permitted. He has substantial ties to the community and he has no ties outside the community. Both of his parents are professionals. His Mother is present in court if you wish to speak with her you certainly can.


THE COURT:  I think I may have already.


MR. ROCKIND:  What’s that?


THE COURT:  I think I may have already.


MR. ROCKIND:  Today?


THE COURT:  When she held up the pictures.


MR. ROCKIND:  That –- that’s not my client’s --


MS. HANDThat’s the victim’s mother, your Honor.


THE COURT:  Oh, that’s the victim’s mother.

 

MS. HAND:  Yes, your Honor

 

THE COURT:  Okay.  Go ahead.

 

MR. ROCKIND:  Yeah, that’s the –-if–-if–-if Mrs. Remington had done that, your Honor I would have asked to pause the case and I would have had a –-

 

THE COURT: Okay. Good.

 

MR. ROCKIND: -- a small chat with her. And I would suggest to the Court that there are to the extent that there’s any concern we have substantial we have members of the community that –-can vouch for him and we even have a member of the community that –- that will, which is one of the factors the Court can –- can consider under 6.106(D) and (F); that the Mother will monitor him, that he will be in his parents custody and the Court can institute and –- and put in place a tether. It can be a GPS tether. It can even be home confinement to ensure that he is secure. He can engage in drug testing to ensure that he doesn’t use or possess drugs. The Court has a myriad of tools and that –- that are all outlined under MCR 6.106 to ensure that a reasonable bond and a substantial -– the reasonable bond can be set and all those conditions can –- can warrant in favor of not just his appearance, but that he will not pose a –- a danger or risk of danger to the –- to the public. A million-dollar bond is equivalent to no bond.

 

THE COURT: Okay.

 

MR. ROCKIND: And –- and from my view and I would suggest, Judge that this is my suggestion. I believe that a bond of a –- of $100,000 cash surety ten percent with conditions including the tether. It can be a home confinement tether, an electronic monitoring, drug testing, pretrial services supervision and that his Mother would –- would have him –- she –- she would essentially under the rule be responsible for his care and custody and also be responsible for notifying the court if there’s a violation.


 

MR. ROCKIND: I believe that he was on probation when this offense occurred.

 

THE COURT: Okay. And that was the –- the trespassing or the case in Oakland Circuit?

 

MR. ROCKIND: No, I believe –- I believe that he was on probation for the possession of illegal substances analogue under 7411.


THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you.


MS. HAND: Judge, he would have been – I don’t – oh, I’m sorry I –

 

MR. ROCKIND: Your Honor, I don’t want to mis –- I don’t want to misstate that, so that’s my understanding.

 

THE COURT: That’s one of the factors that –-

 

MR. ROCKIND: Mr. Lewis knows more about the – his background then I, but that’s what I understand it to be.

 

MS. HAND:  Your Honor, he would have been on probation for both.

 

THE COURT:  Okay.


MS. HAND:  He’s on probation to two different courts. 


THE COURT: Which is also in 6.106. Why don’t you tell me what you have to tell me in response?

 

MS. HAND: One – one – some of the other factors that the Court needs to consider is obviously the danger to the community, is there a history of substance abuse as well as the severity of the charges and the likelihood of conviction. A good portion of this case, your Honor was captured on video on Snapchat. The –- I’m asking the Court to withhold ruling on his motion for bond until after the Court has the opportunity to hear the facts and see the videos, hear the totality of the circumstances regarding this offense which you will hear at the preliminary examination. The callousness regarding the death of this individual, the demeanor of the Defendant during the time period while the victim was dying. Videotaping it, laughing. He does pose a serious danger to the community. This case involves the ingestion of drugs by the victim in this case, but it also is clear from the Snapchats that the Defendant himself is a drug user and a drug seller. So, there is the use of substance abuse which is a factor against allowing release in this particular case. The guidelines in this case are gonna start at substantial prison terms well over 10 years in terms of what the penalty is gonna be if in fact he is convicted. The fact that he was on probation to two different courts shows that he does not have the self-control to obey a court order. So, whatever orders this Court would impose I think the Court should be very fearful that the Defendant’s history has demonstrated that he’s not inclined to follow those orders which is why he is serving a jail sentence currently which was imposed by the Circuit Court. All of those, Judge as well as the fact that the witness statements in this particular case there are several witnesses all of whom are fearful of the

Defendant so any type of bond modification that the Court imposes I would strongly suggest need to include; a no contact provision with any of the persons who were interviewed during the course of this investigation, but I don’t think that at this point, your Honor, the Court should modify the bond. Mr. Rockind gave his whole speech about how he needed to be present at the arraignment and that somehow that would have maybe changed the magistrate’s mind. I don’t think any of that is relevant, but I do think it’s relevant for the Court to hear the entirety of this it’s –- it’s really no prejudice to the Defendant. He’s going to be in custody for the – a  good portion of this time period between the probable cause conference and the preliminary examination date and then I believe this Court can make an informed decision having had the benefit of evidence at least to the probable cause standard of what exactly this offense entails. And so, I –-there are factors that weigh heavily against allowing a reduction in bond at this point.

 

THE COURTAll right.  So, the current bond indicates no contact with the family of Denis Preka. Is that correct.


MS. HAND:  Yes, your Honor.

 

THE COURTOr any witness.  Is that specific enough? In other words, the witnesses aren’t listed by name.

 

MS. HAND: They are not, your Honor.

 

THE COURT:  Are they just the witnesses that are listed on the information --

 

MS. HAND:  No, your Honor.  There are –-

 

THE COURT:  -- and complaint?

 

MS. HAND: - there are numerous individuals who were interviewed during the course of the investigation who actually didn’t even want their names brought forward who are listed in the police report that Mr. Rockind is now in possession of, so I would like to include any of the witnesses interviewed during the course of the investigation. Because even though they may not be witnesses for preliminary examination purposes they very well may be witnesses at the trial stage.

 

MR. ROCKIND: I -– I don’t have an issue with –- with the –- the Court providing the Prosecutor or the Prosecutor providing the Court either the list of perspective witnesses, so that it’s clear and not ambiguous and unknown who the witnesses are we can –- I perceive who they are, but the fact of matter is I don’t have any issue with that. I don’t think –- I mean I look at Mr. Remington and quite candidly I mean –- I mean he must weigh all of a 140 pounds. Looks like he’s wispy. I mean I think a strong wind could blow him over. I don’t –- I don’t project that he is in the traditional sense a threat. He has no history. There’s no assaultive history, there’s no history of him posing a threat of harm. I understand that there are people in his world that don’t want to associate their name with a case or don’t want to have their name on a case or don’t want to be known as someone that may have cooperating or maybe even think in the –- in the genesis I’m afraid of this guy. There’s literally no history of him seeking retribution against anybody in any way shape or form that I’m aware of. So, the fact of the matter is is that if the Court modifies the bond, the amount of the bond his parents are going to have put up a substantial asset or a substantial amount of money. The purpose of that is not to lock the person down, you know that. The purpose isn’t to keep him locked down under a million-dollar bond. The purpose of that is to have the amount of bond, the amount of money that is invested with either the court or a bail bondsman, the ideal is that the amount of money will act as a deterrent to him posting either fleeing which there’s no reason or evidence that he would do or pose any threat of harm to anybody.

 

MS. HAND: And your Honor, my –-

 

MR. ROCKIND: I would suggest to the Court that I would suggest to the Court that the bond that I proposed with all of the conditions that I proposed would accomplish that. A million dollars is just -- that’s the equivalent of no bond and --

 

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I’ve listened very carefully to –- to both of you and tried to give both of you an opportunity because this is a very very serious case. At this point I am not convinced that there was any abuse of discretion by the magistrate. I’m going to continue the bond. I will allow you of course to make any sort of argument that you would like to after the preliminary exam is over. Mr. Rockind, you can certainly re-raise the issue. I think the Prosecutor’s thoughts on that are well taken. So, --

MR. ROCKIND: Can I make one point, Judge?


THE COURT: Of course.


MR. ROCKIND: One of the things that I –- I’ve noticed is that there is –- there’s a –- there’s a traditional view for some reason maybe it’s sort of a conventional wisdom that the standard of review of magistrate’s decision on bond is abuse of discretion. That’s only on appeal if we were to appeal this decision to the Circuit Court. The –- the standard for your Honor is not abuse of discretion. The standard is –- is –- is there a substantial reason to modify the bond and I would suggest that a million dollars is a substantial reason to modify the bond –-


THE COURT: I would –-


MR. ROCKIND: -- just on a reasonable number.


THE COURT: Just so the record’s clear. At this point having looked through the pretrial services report taking into account the fact that he’s had other pending cases for which he was on probation for, he’s got a dismissed under HYTA case for throwing objects at trains or cars from Livonia, two other charges dismissed of the similar nature there. One of the concerns that I have initially would be what assurances could you give me that a young man like this would conform to rules like drug testing and other things? He’s –- he’s on probation already when this allegedly happened so, I’m just not convinced at this point. You can maybe convince me after the exam, but at this point I just wouldn’t –- I wouldn’t change the bond myself.


MS. HAND: Thank you, Judge.

 

THE COURT: All right. Thank you. (June 19 2019 11:41 a.m proceedings concluded


After the hearing 6/19/2029 2:32 Pm Remington defense attorney tweet Just an FYI from your a criminal defense lawyer If you thought your @Snapchat messages were secret and private, I've got a DVD and table of snap messages from a current homicide case to prove you wrong.

 

 

 





9 views0 comments

Comentários


© 2019 by Amerigive Foundation. Charitable TAX ID 84-3042457

 Email: info@denispreka.org  -  Tel: 248-707-9300

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • TikTok
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
bottom of page