IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                       DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS                            )       CASE NO ST 2019 CR 00168
                                                        )
                                Plaintiff               )       14 v 1 C § 605(a) and 604 e(15)
       vs                                               )       (16) (19) (32)
                                                        )       14V1C §1083(a)(1)
ALAIN RODRIGUEZ RIONDA                                  )       14 V 1 C §2101(a)
                                                        )       14V1C§79l(l)(2)
                                Defendant               )       14 v I c § 334(2)
                                                        )
                                        Cite as 

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION

{11    THIS MATTER is before the Court On Defendant Alain Rodriguez Rionda 5 Motion

Against Excessive Monetary Conditions of Bond Imposed in Violation of Defendant s

Constitutional Rights filed December 1 l 2020 The People oppose Rodriguez a motion For the

reasons set f01th herein the defendant 5 motion will be denied

                                                FACTS

112    Alain Rodriguez Riondd (hereinafter “Rodriguez ) is a permanent resident of the United

States He was bum on October 16 1979 in Cardenas Cuba but ha: resided in the U S for 25

years At the time of his ancst, he was a resident of Miami, Florida He had traveled to the U S

Virgin Islands in March 2019 to work fo1 a roofing company On July 24 2019 he was arrested

at Cy1il 1: King Airport in St Thomas, U S Virgin Islands' pursuant to an arrest warrant7 and

thereaftei Chaiged with violations of the Criminally Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act




1 At the time oflus arrest Rodriguez possessed a one way mm m Midmi 1 L
7 The arrest warrant was issued by the Superior Conn on July 17 2019
People v Alain Rad: (gm Rmnda
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                               Cite as 2021 V1 Super3l
Memoiandum Opinion
Page 2 of 15

grand larceny ‘ possession of stalen property " fotgery S and obtaining money by false pretense 6

He is accused of stealing blank checks from the Virgin Islands Port Authority (VlPA) and

unlawfull Y writin g numerous checks on its Marine Revenue account to himself and othexs between

April and June 2019 The checks allegedly total more than $90 000 00 He has not been able to

post hail since his arrest in July 2019 and has now been in custody for approximately 21 months 7

At his initial hearing bail was set at $250 000 00 cash or propeny as Rodriguez was deemed a

serious flight risk 8

113      On August 7, 2019, Rodriguez filed a motion for release pursuant to Virgin Islands Rule

of Criminal Procedure 5 1(b) In his motion Rodriguez alleged that he has no substantial funds

which may be deposited as surety and thus requested that he be released upon the posting of

property or an unsecured bond of $25,000 00 9 During arraignment before a magistrate judge on

August 8 2019 the Court denied Rodriguez 5 motion without prejudice and noted for the record

Rodriguez 5 lack oftles to the community Defendant has not renewed his motion to reduce bail

Instead, Rodriguez filed the instant motion with the Court a1 guing that his continued incarceration

is a violation ofthe Eighth Amendment rights and requesting that he be 1eleased from the Bureau

of Correction ( BOC ) on a.“ unseculed bond of $25,000 00




1Rothigucz is ehuged With grand larceny in violation 0t 14 V I C § 1018112)“)
4 Rodiiguez is ehaiged mm possession Ofstuleu pioperty m violation of 14 v 1 c § 21 mm
‘ Rothiguez is changed with foigery in violation of 14 V 1 L § 791(l)(2)
° Rodiigunz is changed with forgery in violation of 14 V I C § 834(2)
7 Rodiiguez was advised of his rights on July 25 2019 and arraigned on August 8 2019
K Th1. Court also imposed the following conditions following Rodrigue; s arrest he is not to violate any laws ofthe
U S Viigin Islands or the Unlled Slates he shall not leave Ihe St Thomas/St John district unless 111st obtaining
written pcmiission from this Court ht. shall not have contact with any polential witnesses In his case; and, as a
condilion 01' his release, he must surrender all travel documents, including his an'nancnt resident Cald
’ In his motion Rodriguez noted that he conferred with the assistant attorney general icgarding his request as rcquiicd
underVI R CRIM P 5 I(g) and she opposes lhcmotion
People v Alum Rad: (gm Rmmla
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                            Cite as 2021 v15upet 31
MCmoIandum Opinion
Page 3 of 15

                                           LEGAL STANDARD

114     The Eighth Amendment 01 the United States Constitution'0 provides in relevant part

 Excessive bail shall not be required                This rule is made applicable to the Virgin Islands

through section 3 ofthe Revised Organic Act at 1954 Revised Organie Act of 1954 § 3 48 U S C

§§ 1561 (1984), reprinted in V1 CODE ANN                 Historical Documents Organic Acts and U S

Constitution at 159 60 (1995 & Supp 2013) (preceding V1 CODE ANN tit 1) H and is enshrined

in Rule 5 1(b) of the Virgin Islands Rules of Criminal Procedure V 1 R CR1M P 5 1(1))

( Excessive bail shall not be required )

115     The prohibition against excessive baill2 tequires that the govemment set bail at an amount

sufficient to ensure the defendant 5 appearance at trial Rtyrmldx v U 5' 

, 32 (1959)

( The purpose of bail is to insure the defendants appearance and submission to the judgment of

the coun) SlaLkv Boyle 342 U S 1 3(1951)(citingUS v Motlaw 

 (1926)) (finding

that bail set at an amount highci than to assure the defendant’s presence at t1ial is excessive),

Carrots t P001710 

 (V1 2014) (quoting Tuba] v People 51 V1 147 155 n 4

(V I 2009) (alteration in original) ( The pumosc ofbail              is to assure the defendants attendance




1“ The Lighth Amendment 15 applicable to the Virgin Islands through the Revised O|ganic Act Kalpou h t (10v m]
the VI 

 139 n 14(1) VI 1997)( Execnivc bail shall not be required, and the E1ghth Amendment
and the Due Pxoeess Clause of the 14Ih Amendment me made apphcable to the Virgin Island: under section 3 ofthe
Revised Otgamc Act 01' 1954 ) TUt/mlmrl v People 57 v1 540 545 n 3 (V1 2012)( Conglcs: has extended the
Eighth Amendment as well as the Due Prom.» Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the V1rg1n Islands through
section 3 nfthe Revised Organit. Act of 1954) Muriel] v Pmplc 54 V1 338 351 n 6 (V I 2010) Tubal v PLOIJIL

(v1 2009) Btmmet People 50V1241 256(VI 2008)
” The Revived O1ganie Act of1954, 48 U S C § 1541 et seq is the Virgin Islands equivalent de state constitution
that sewe< as the basic charter ofgovemmem in th teiritmy ' rudmmm, 57 v 1 at 545 (alteration 1n or1gina1)(intemal
quotation marks omitted) (quoting Rruw i Farrell» 

 1027 1032 (3d Cir 1993))
" Al] defendants charged with cnmes (ht. Viigin Islands except those chalged with 11m dcgicc murder have a
constitutional tight to bail under the Revised Otgdnic Act William? v Peuple, 

 (V I 2010) ( We
emphanze that dcfcndints ch1rged “11h crimes in 10ml V1rg1n Islands courts have a constitutional ught to b 111 in
auffiuuit surcties       )' Tubal 51 V1 at 161 ( [A]ll defendants other than those charged with first dogma murder
when: the ploofis evidence or the presumption is glLdt arc bailable by sufficlent sureties )
People v Alain Rodrigiw RKmda
(age No ST 2019 (R 00168                     Cite as 2021 V1 Super31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 4 of 15

in court and it cannot be a means ofplmishing the defendant            ))' People v Ford 49 V I 270

280 (V1 Super Ct 2008) (citing Bandy t U 8‘ 

 (1960)( ltis settled that the purpose

of ball is not to punish the [d]efendant before he is tried and convicted but Simply to ensure his

appearance at trial and submission to thejudgment ofthe Court ) People 0/ the VI Simmondx

48 V1 320 324 (V1 Super Ct 2007) (citation omitted) (finding that the purpose of bail has

always been to ensure that the [d]efendant will stand trial and never to punish the defendant)

People v Camacho 47 V1 302 308 (V1 Super Ct 2005) but see US \ HImIer 

 (3d Cir 1986) (judicial ufficers must also considei the threat ofdanger to the community when

determining conditions ofpretrial release) Tubal 51 V 1 at 156 57 (collecting eases) ( [J]udges

may consider the risk offlight danger to society or both when setting conditions on bail but may

not use such considerations to deny bail entirely ”) As such, “[a]ny bail or conditions of release

that ale not tailored to achieve the purpose of bail are considered excessive and theretnre

unconstitutional   Cnrmir 61 V 1 at 260 (quoting Riewu v People 57 V1 659 667 (V1 2012)

(citing section 3 0fthe Revised Organic Act» we also People v Lajutle No ST 2016 CR 00328

 at *2 (V 1 Super Ct Feb 15 2017) (alteration in original) (quoting People v

§?me 

 at *3 (V1 Super Ct Nov 26 2013)) ( [T]he plain meaning of

 excessive bail does not require that it be beyond one's means only that it be greater than

necessary to achieve the purposes for which bail is imposed )

116    To resolve a motion against excessive bail, the Court           must make an individualized

detennination in order to ensure that the bail is not excessive ” Rieam, 57 V I at 667; see also

S'tack 342 U S at 5 (noting that the court must apply reasonable standards and make a case by

case determination) Peoplc v ?aldana N0 ST 14 CR F187 

 at *4 (VI Super

Ct Jan 16 2015) (noting that the Court must make a determination based on the particular
People » Alum Rad: Iguc Rmnda
Case NU ST 2019 (.R 00168                               Cite as 2021 VI Supcr31
Memorandum] Opinion
Page 5 0f 15

defendant and case ) cf. (amaLha 47 V I at 309 (determining the flight risk of the defendant is

 the most impartant factor in setting bail where the offense or offenses charged are statutorily non

dangerous ) The Court uses its discretion in making an individualized determination '3 but must

be well reasoned in its analysis '4 See Stack, 342 U S at 5 Unclch I R CRlM 1’ 5 1(b) the Court

must impose the least restrictive means necessary to reasonably 1) ensure the defendant 5 presence

at trial, 2) protect the community from physical harm and 3) assure the integrity of the judicial

process ‘5 Therefore any bail or conditions ofrelease that are not tailored to ensure the defendant 5

presence at trial protect the Lommunity from physical harm and assure the integrity of the judicial

ptocese,15 would be excessive and thus, unconstitutional Ree S‘Iack, 342 U S at 3 (citing Motlaw,

) Lanai: 61 V1 at 260 (quoting Riewa 57 VI at 667 (citing section 3 of the

Revised Organic Act))

$17      Undet V I R CRtM P 5 1(b), the least restrictive form of bail is to 1elease the defendant

on their own recognizance V I R CRIM P 5 1(b)(1) However                                  [w]here the Court finds

unsecured personal recognizance inadequate,” the Court may order the accused’s release upon his

posting of an unsecured bail bond in an amount for which he is fully and personally hable upon

failure to appea1 in court but which is not secured by any deposit of or lien upon property                          VI




” The Conn s detexminalion oflhe accused 5 conditions ofreltasc rest: in the sound disctellon 0fthe trial judge
9mm" 

 at *7(clllng mea 57 VI at 668 (noting 11m the Virgin 1512111115 Supreme Counappues
an abuse of discretion standard to the trial Court 5 decision»
'4 Freviou=1y the determmation of the amount of bail act by this Conn wa: govemed by Superior Coult Rule 141
Howcvei this rule was repealed On June 1 2019 V1 SUP! R CT R 141 (repealed 2019)
'5 The con“ shall impose the first of the following conditions of {deans that will reasonably protect the community
flom risk of physical harm to persons assure the presence ofthc amused at 111211 or mum the integrity ofthe judicial
process VI R CRIM P 5 103)
“’ The integiity nfthejudiciztl process as that phrase is used In a prctiial 1e1ease and detention provision ofa state
constitution includes more than Just Situations in which a defendant while free on bond threatens 0r bribes a witness
or falaifie: evidence as the integrity of the Judicial process is undercut if the courts do not have effective [0015 to use
when: a defendant free on bail commits a further Crime 8 C I S BmI§ 146 (2008) (quoting Williams v Spear: 814
So 2d 1167 1170 (Fla 3d DCA 2002))
People v Alain Ratlrtgtle Rromla
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                             Cite as 2021 V1 Super 31
Memotandltm Opinion
Page a or 15

R CRIM P 5 l(b)(2)            The Court may also impose restrictions on the defendant 5 travel,

association or abode during the pre trial period ofrelease VI R CRIM P 5 l(b)(3) and/or place

the defendant in custody of a designated person or organization that agrees to supervise the

defendant VI R CRlM P 5 1(b)(4) 1fthe Court finds that none ofthe above restrictions or seine

combination thereof, are adequate, the Court may order the accused to post a secured bail bond,

justified by affidavit and under risk of f01feiture in exchange for his release V 1 R CRIM P 5

l(b)(5) Whether a form of bail is adequate is based on whether it ensures the presence of the

accused at trial protects the cuminunity from risk of physical harm and assures the integrity of

the judicial process all by the least restrict means necessary S'Le V1 R CRIM P 5 1(b) 1f the

Court finds that a secured bail bond is inadequate then the Court may order the accused to post a

cash bail bond V I R CRIM P 5 l(b)(6) A cash bail bond may be posted by a defendant or by

another person on [the] defendant 5 behalt upon [the] condition that such money will be forfeited

ifthe defendant does not appear at coutt proceedings or comply with court orders '7 V 1 R CRIM

P 5 l(b)(6)



*7 In addition to impostng one or more ofthe above forms 0mm the Court may also require a thud party custodian
to funhct ensmc compliance with the tctms ofthe telease and the appearance ofthc defendant         VI R CRlM P
5 l(d)' eg Pmpltv Ruzlrtgue No 3X 17 CR 145 2018WL 582568 at*5 (VI Supet Ct Jan 16 2018) (finding
that the defendants parents wete only suitable as so thitd party custodians after heating testimony that someone
would be home 24 hours a day and that the father would be able and Willing to pay for electronic monitoring of the
defendant at their home) ClifllJlZ 2017 W1. 679328 at *4 (apptoving defendant 5 request for a third party custodian
having Ubscwed her demeanor and hcaid testimony on hm relationship with the defendant, longstanding tic: to the
Virgin Islands community, and het promise to that he would obey her hues as third party custodian); 20mph: 8 People
v Mullhew 49 v1 225 293 (v1 SupCI a 2008) (denying defendant 5 requests {01 two sepalztle third party
custodian: aftci finding that one could not comm] the defendant and the other would be away for work most of the
day and would not be able to monitor the defendant) lirgm Island: v Pane” No ST 2013 SFL 00005 

 .11 *4 [VI Supet Ct Mat 24 2014)(denying deCttdant sreqltestfot athird party custodlan after finding
that the individual would not have her own permanent place of residence, was combative when questioned by the
prosteutot had not been cooperative with the social workct and police in locating the defendant on an unrelated
matter) If the Coun requires 21 third party custodian the custodian must fully exeeute under oath the Third Party
ConsentFomt before [the] defettdautmay bctcleased VI R CRIM P 5 1(d)
Peuple v Alum R011; Igne mela
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                     Cue as 2021 VI Supei 31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 7 of 15

                                           ANALYSIS

118     Redriguez argues that his bail, set in the amount 0f$250 000, is excessive under the Eight

Amendment because it is set at an amount higher than necessary to ensure his appearance at trial

Specifically Rodriguez alleges that he is indigent and argues that because of indigence and the

high amount at which bail is set he will be forced to remain in pretrial detention until the

conclusion of proceedings As such, Rodriguez argues that the bond is not set to ensure his

presence at trial but rather a punishment because ofhis indigence Rodriguez argues that detaining

him for his indigence violates his constitutional right to a fair trial and the presumption of

innocence Under the Eight Amendment and VI R CRIM P 5 I(b), Rodriguez argues that the

Court is prohibited from setting excessive bail and is required to set bond at a reasonable amount

consistent with the interest ofensuiing his piesence at trial Specifically, Rodriguez requests to be

released from the Bureau ofCon ections upon the posting ofan unsecured bond 0f$25 000 00 and

with other such conditions as the Court deems just and pioper Rodriguez argues that his request

is reasonable in light of the following facts that the charges against him involves a nonviolent

crime that he is not at risk of retuming to Cuba and that he agrees to abide by all stay away and

no contact conditions ordered by the Court

119     The People argue that Rodriguez 5 motion is essentially a motion tor reduction of bail and

that they oppose the motion on the grounds that Rodriguez is a flight risk and a danger to the

community To support their argument the People cite to Rodriguez s advice of rights hearing in

which the Court stated that it considered the defendant a serious flight risk and that he had no

ties to the Virgin Islands

1110    Determining the excessiveness of bail is not based on a finding that the amount set is

beyond the defendant 5 means but rather that the amount set is greater than necessary to achieve
People v Alum Razlrlgue Rmnda
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                             Cite as 

Memomndum Opinion
Page 8 0f 15


the purpcses for which hail is imposed            Cajuste, 

 at *2 (Citing Stevens 

 at *3 (quoting (mien v County ofLm Angela 477 F 3d 652 661 62 (9th Cir

2007)) Insufficient funds with which to pay bail does not automatically render the bail amount

excessive or unconstitutional ‘ Calm“, 

, at *2

       A   Risk of Flight

1111       Whether bail is set at a level to adequately ensure the defendant 5 presence at court depends

on whether the defendant is a flight risk '8 See Tobal 51 V1 at 156 57 (judges take facts, such as

the defendant 5 risk of flight, into consideration when detemiining the 1e1ease conditions to be

imposed and the bail to be established); Camacho 47 V 1 at 309 (whether defendant is a flight

risk is the most important factor to consider where the offenses charged are nonviolent) Whether

the defendant is a flight risk is determined by a number of factors that the Couit may consider

including the potential 1ength 0f the defendant 5 sentencc if convicted,” prior use of false

identities or deceptive means by which the dctcndant may evade government detection if

attempting to flee 2“ the risk of retaliation from others which incentivizes the defendant to flee,“

the defendant 5 citizenship status 22 the defendant 5 employment status 23 the defendant 5 history



“When the risk of flight is slight release on ones own recognizance is constitutionally required S/mmzmds 48 v1
at 332 (quoting US v Stat! 4501 3d 863 866 (9th Ch 2006)) (finding that the defendant s indigency and slight risk
of fllght weighs in fave: of his release on his own recognizance)
1’ Where lhe defendant faces a length sentence it Convicted the risk of flight is prescnt (alnutho, 47 VI at 309
(citing US v Hullsnder 162 P Supp 2d 261 264 (S D N Y 2001)) (noting the picmise as well settled) see also
People v Fwd 49 V I 270 282 (V 1 Supei Ct 2008) (discussing a dcfcmhnt s incentive to flee when the penalties
for his alleged uimcs arc gleat) ( zi/mla 

 at *4 (the scuousness of the charges weighs against
reducing the defendant 5 bail' Peuple v Powell N0 ST 2013 SFL 00005 

 at '4 (V1 Supci Ct
Mar 24 2014) (finding that the defendant is a flight risk because the defendant faces life in prison it convicted)
7“ See Cumunho 47 V I at 310 (finding that the defendant had a tendency of deception falsification and subterfuge
afler having used at least nine aliases and three different Social Security numbcis)
’1 See Curmuhu 47 VI at 310 (finding th1t the defendant had caused sciious injury 1nd hardship to numerous
individuals who may seek ictaliation)
   Sec Pwp/L v Impeltmce N0 ST 17 CR 319 

 at *2 (VI Super Ct Nov 28 2017) (finding
that the defendant Was a flight nsk because he is a citizen of Haiti)
’5 3‘91. Lexpe/ume 

 at ‘2 (finding that the defendant 5 unemployment contributes to a risk offlight)
People v Alum R041 Igue lama;
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                               the as 2021 V1 Super 31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 9 of 15

of travel 2" the defendant 5 ties to the jurisdiction 75 and whether the defendant has considerable

contacts or ties to family members outside ofjurisdiction 2“ Campure People v Rodriguez, N0

SX 17 CR 145 

 at *5 (v1 Super Ct Jan 16 2018) (the fact that the defendant
sun'cndered himselfto the authorities two weeks aftet the alleged criminal act mitigates his risk of

flight)

1112     Defendant Rodriguez 3 connections to the Virgin Islands are minimal and his contacts

outside the jurisdiction ate significant Rodriguez had only been in the territory for approximately

four months before he was arrested            during which time he worked as a subcontractor at the V 1

Port Authority At the time ofhis anest he was at the Cyril K King Airport, intending to board a

flight with a one way ticket when he was stopped by Customs and Border Patrol agents and

arrested on the wan ant that is the basis 0fthis Case His unly apparent contact in the Virgin Islands

is his former employer, by whom he was employed for only four months Otherwise Rodriguez

has no ties to the Virgin Islands community and is no longer employed He lives in Miami F|o1ida

where his wife and two childten also reside              A person‘s desire to be in the eomfon offamily is

significant particularly if they are unemployed and face the threat of prison time If Lonvicted

Rodriguez faces considerable prison time 27 Therefore the Court finds that his incentive to flee is



 ‘ See (ajmtt. 

 at ‘4 (the defendant s history of having frequently tiaveled t0 othel Caribbean
counttics in the past contiibuted to the Coun‘s dctelmination that the defendant was a flight risk)
"5 Set. Levpunmt 

 at *2 (finding that defendant failed to present evidence other than a past
icsidcnce at current ties to the Viigin Islands) PEUPIL v Thymus 

 (V I Super Ct 2007) (finding
that the detendant was a l'hghl risk because his ties to the Virgm Islands community wete minimal “inasmuch as he
had icsidcd in the U S Virgin Islands 1'01 only one year ptioi to his arrest and his only family membet In the Territory
was an uncle living on St John ’)
“a See Yakima 

 at *7 (finding that the detendanl 5 extra lenitoiial contacts when combined with
the fact that he faces a maximum sentence uflifc in piison warrants a determination that there is a 115k of flight)
"7 Rodriguez was charged With CICO violations, which earnes a sentence ufincaiceration of not more than 15 years
and a fine of not more than $500 000 00 or both grand larceny which names a sentence of inearcelalion ofnut more
than 10 years and mandatory restitution possessing stolen property which carries a sentence of incarceration ofnot
mom. Ihan 10 yeats and a fine of not mate than $7 000 01 both forgery which canics a sentence oflncarceiation of
not more than 10 yeais and a fine ofnot more than $2 000 or both forgery uttcnng a false document wh1ch Cantu
PanIL vAlu/rl Rodngue RIOm/u
Lase No ST 2019 CR 00168                              Cite as 2021 VI Supei 31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 10 of 15

substantial See ford 

 Camacho 47 V I at 309 (citing Hallendei 162 F Supp 2d

at 264) Yaldamz 

 at *7 Cajmte 

 at *4 Leiperancn 

 at *2 Powell 

 at *4 The People argue that Rodriguez may likely flee

to his homeland of Cuba However, the Court is not inclined to conclude that he would necessarily

flee to Cuba as he did not appear to do :0 in the other arrests that appear on the National Crime

Intormatiou Center national rap Sheet However, the lack oi ties to the Virgin Islands causes the

Coutt to find that Rodriguez is a flight risk In addition the Court finds concerning Rodriguez 5

history of fraudulent acts See Camacho 47 V I at 310 He was previously convicted of fraudulent

use ofa credit card, which suggests that Rodriguez may use fraudulent means to evade government

detection if he attempted to flee 23 See id As such, the Court finds that Rodriguez 5 history of fraud

increases his risk of flight 29 and that under the totality of foregoing considerations, Rodriguez is

a serious flight risk 3°

       3 Danger to Community

1113     The adequacy of bail under V I R Crim P 5 1(b) is also dependent on whether the

defendant is a danger to the community See Ford 49 V I at 282 Camacho, 47 V I at 31 Ccymle




a sentence nfinoarcelatton ofnot more lhan 10 yeah and a fine ofnol mote than $2 000 or both and obtaining money
by false pretenses which cairies a sentence ofinciirccration ohm more than 10 yeals
7“ The Coutt does not consider Rodiigucz s cunent climng in its flight 115k analysis because the defendant has not yet
been convicted of such charges and is plcsumcd innocent until pmven guilty Any premist. that suggests that a
defendant is a flight risk beLausc 111. has access to a large amount ofallegedly stolen money must he rejected unless
the premise is medicated on a prim conviction Slmmondv 48 v1 329
 ”Compare PLUI),£‘\ Rwlttgue N0 SX 17 CR 145 

 at *5 (VI Super Ct Jan 16 2018) (the fact
that the defendant Surrendeted himselfto thL authentic: two weeks after the alleged criminal act mitigates his iisk of
flight)
“’Compalel’evplev Radrlgue No SX 17 (R 145 

 at *5 (VI Super Ct Jan 16 2018) (the fact
that the defendant surrendeicd himsLIfto the authorities two weeks after the alleged criminal ant mitigates his risk of
flight) Surrendering travel documents may mitigate the risk of flight but such a determination is made on a case by
case basis ( 11pm; 

 at *4 (the defendant : proposal to surrender hIs passport was insufficient to
mitigate his risk of flight because [them are way: to leave St Thomas without a passport ) Molemcr Rodriguez
has no offered any such proposal
People v Alum Rodi lgue RmmIa
Cate No ST 2019 (R 00168                               Cite a: 2021 V1 SltpCt 31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 11 of 15

 at *2 People \ George ST 2016 CR 00085 

 *3 (V 1

Super Ct Sept 27 2016) Saldamz 

 at *5 Pan ell 

 at *4

Whether a defendant is a danger to the community is dependent on the Coun’s consideration ofa

numbet of factors including but not limited to the nature of the charges 31 the defendant 5

criminal history,32 the defendant 5 history of violence 33 a prior court order to attend anger

management H and the defendant’s history of mental illness 35 But of ?zmrrwrida, 48 V I at 329

(pending charges cannot necessarily determine whether a defendant is a danger to the community




3‘ See Lamacha 47 v 1 at 3 1 1 (findingthat the defendant 15 a danger to all persons because 0t his alleged patttLipatiOn
In a scheme to defiaud the government which led to financial hardship f0: ttutncrolta persons) Pattdl, 

 at *4 (finding that defendant was a danger to the community becauat. ofthc nature ofthe charges~defendant
was charged with hm degtee mulder second degree murder, first and third degtee mam teekiess endangemtcnt
and three Lounta of possesaion of a fireaim during the commission of a crime of violence aristng from the fatal
Shoottng and the Circumstances linden which they occurred) hm see Cajun? 

, at *2 (finding that
the defendant is not a danget to the community despite the fact that he faces thUttS changes because the People failed
to show introduce evidence to show a sttong likelihood of conviction) People v (reorgt ST 2016 CR 00085 

 *3 (V I Supet Ct Sept 27 2016) (nottng that the defendant i> charged with violent crimes all involving
a firearm and for which he 15 facing life imprtsonment but not finding the defendant a danger to the community
beeause he had been living in the teirttory without incident even aftct the murdei ofthe victim) Sztldzmtl 

 at *5 (noting that the ehatges of domestic Violence assault and minder ate extremely serious but finding
that in the abaence ofclcat and convincing evidence that the defendant beat in: wife he remains innocent until prove“
guilty and the Court cannot consider him dangerous based on the current chargev against him)
P See Fwd 49 V l at 282 (the fact that defendant had no prim eliminal history \Aeighed against finding him to be a
dangct to community) Pam.” 

 at *4 (finding that defendant 5 last two conviction: involved
violence, which eonttibltted to the Court 5 finding that he wag a danger to the community); bu! Ate Cajmle, 

 at *2 (finding that the People provided no documentation such a: a judgement 0r otdet of conviction to
substantiate thcit claim that defendant is a danger to the community because on his criminal record) Saldarm, 

 at *5 (finding that defendant 5 previous eonviction: were fol extortion and conspiracy to commit
extortion, ti hich are not crimes of violence and thetcfote weighed againat a finding that the defendant is a danger to
the Lummunity)
’3 9L9 Pane” 

 at *4 (where a review of the record revealed an e:ealation in the frequency of
attest: and charges the last two of which involved violence) but itt S'aldzma, 

 at *5 (teeognizing
that the defendant may have a propensity for violence but finding that the People did not meet then burden ot
demomtrating as such with clear and Lonvtncing evidence)
3‘ See Paws” 

 at *4 (findlng that the defendant was otdered to complete anger management
counselling as part of his sentence for a ptiot Conviction of domestic violence)
3‘ See I'm :1 49 V 1 at 282 (finding that the defendant could not be deemed a danger to his community despite being
Lharged with dangerom crimes because he Was a teenager and lacked any prior criminal history or hiatory of mental
illncn)
People v Alum Radugue Rmmla
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                           Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion
Page 12 0f 15

because the detendant has not yet been tried 01 convicted and he is presumed innocent until proven

guilty» 36
1114    Rodiguez is charged with grand larceny forgery and passession of stolen property While

the Court finds that these charges are serious and that they carry sentences of considerable prison

time, the Court also finds that they are nonviolent crimes for which Rodriguez remains innocent

until proven guilty bee Coffin v US            156 U S 432 453 (1895) ( The principle that there is a

presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law axiomatic and elementary

and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law ) Moreover

the People have not presented evidence that demonstrates how the charges against Rodriguez

thieaten tlte physical safety 0fthe community ?ee ng/usle 

 at *2 George 

 *3 Yakima 

 at *5 As such the Court finds that the nature of

Rodriguez 5 alleged crimes does not establish that he is '1 danger to the community Ska V I R

CRIM P 5 1(8)( The court shall impose              conditions of release that will reasonably protect the

community {tom risk ofphysical harm to persons               ”)

1115    The People also aigue that Rodriguez is a danger to the community because of his

numerous anests and cunvictiens, and history of becoming violent Given that Rodriguez is

presumed innocent ofthe crimes pending against him, the Court will only consider his convictions

in its analyms See Simmondt 48 V 1 at 329 The People cite to Rodriguez 5 NCIC 5 record that

shows convictions for petit theft and burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, driving under the

influence, leaving the scene of an accident, and resisting an officet without violence; driving undei




’5 S'Hmnoml; 48 V I at 329 ( Defendant has not been tiled and convicted of [the] charges and he is presumed to be
innocent of those changes as well as 01' 11h. charges in the case at bai ) Howevei exceptions may be made fol
defendants charged with violent offenses such as fiist degree murdci wheie the Court finds that there is sufficiuf
risk to the safety ofthc community See Powell 

 at *4
Peuple v Aim Rod: Iguz Rmqu
Cast. N0 ST 2019 (.R 00168                             Cite as 2021 V1811pcr31
Memolandum Opinion
Page 13 of 15

the influence with serious bodily injuxy a hit and run and iesisting arrest grand theft in the third

degiee,37 possession ofinstrument in similitude, resisting an officer with violence to his person

and driving while suspended and fraudulent use ofa credit card While the Court notes its concern

in the number of Rodriguez 5 convictions, only those convictions for crimes of violence may

demonstrate the level of danger that Rodriguez poses to the community 8'62 S‘aldtma 

 at *5 The Court finds that Rodriguez 5 convictions for driving under the influence suggest

that he poses a thieat not only to himself but to the safety at the community Yet the Court is

most concerned by Rodriguez s conviction for resisting an officer with violence to his person,

which suggests not only that Rodriguez may have a propensity for violence but also that he may

threaten the safety oflaw enforcement officers Other than asserting that the crimes for which he

has been charged are nonviolent, Rodriguez has not presented evidence or argument to outweigh

the People 5 contention that he thieatens the physical safety of the community Theiefore, the

Court finds that, based on his criminal history Rodriguez is a danger to the community Sue id

       C Reasonableness 0f Bail

{[16      Bail is leasonable if it is the least restrictive means to cnsuie the defendant 5 attendance at

 all cnnferences hearings and the tiial 0f [the] case                   S26 George, 

, *4

S'uldzmu 

 at *7 Rodriguez requests that the conditions of his bail be altered to

release upen the posting ofan unsecured bond of $25 000 00 because the current amount at which

his bail is set is excessive Rodriguez argues that he is indigent and lacks the financial resources

to post bail in the current amount for his release            However, a lack of financial resources to pay

bail does not automatically render the bail amount excessive or unconstitutional See Pow ell, 2014




‘7 Rodiiguez has been convicted of giand Ihet‘t in the third deglee twice
People v Alum Rodugile Rumdn
Case No ST 2019 CR 001511                      C110 a: 2021 v1 Super 31
Memorandum Opinion
Page 14 of 

 at *4 Bail is excessive when it is set at an amount higher than neeessary to ensure

the defendant s appearance at court proceedings See Lanai: 61 V1 at 2601; Tubal 

 57 Where the defendant s ability to pay matters under the Eighth Amendment is the point at

which bail becomes so high that it guarantees the denial of his treedom Bandy 81 S Ct at 198

(citing Slack 342 U S at 72) For the case of an indigent defendant        the fixing of bail in even a

modest amount may have the practical effect of denying him release           Bandy 81 S Ct at 198

(citation omitted) The consequences of such are not only the denial of the defendant s freedom

but also the deprivatiun of his trial rights 811ml}! 81 S Ct at 198 ( Imprisoned a man may have

no oppommity to investigate his case to cooperate with his counsel to eain the money that is still

necessary for the fullest use of his right to appeal ) As such the imperative tor courts is to set

bail at an amount that achieves the purposes of bail, without going beyond them

1117   If the least restrictive means are to be imposed, then release must be favored Bandy 81

S Ct at 198 However where release does not ensure the defendant 5 presence at trial because the

defendant poses a flight risk then the Court must set bail at an amount that deters the risk of flight

See Bandy 81 S Ct at 198 Here the Conn finds that Rodriguez is a flight risk He has significant

connections outside the territory and has no ties to the Virgin Island community Were he to be

released the Court finds that there would be a substantial incentive to flee this jurisdiction

Moreover the Court finds that his lack of financial resources compounds his ability to afford a

flight to return to the jurisdiction to appear for trial   The Court must set bail in such a way to

satisfy the purposes of bail first Therefore the Court finds that the current b'til is not a violation
Peuple v Alum Rad: igue Rmnda
Case No ST 2019 CR 00168                                Cite as 2021 V1 Super3l
Memorandum Opinion
Page 15 of 15

of Eighth Amendment Thus the Court must deny Rodriguez 5 request for release on an unsecured

hand But the Court will reduce bail to $100 000 00 cash or property 38

                                                  CONCLUSION

1118     Rodriguez faces considerable prison time if convicted He also has significant contacts

outside the jurisdiction and no apparent ties the territory As such the Court finds that Rodriguez 5

incentive to flee is high Based on his criminal history and prior acts of violence the Coun also

finds that Rodriguez presents a threat t0 the physical safety of the community For these reasons

the Court finds that the current bail is not a violation 0fthe Eighth Amendment Accordingly the

Court will deny Rodriguez 5 motion against excessive bail and for release on an unsecured bond

However given that Rodriguez is indigent and that he retains his presumption at innocence until

ptoven guilty the Court will reduce bail to $100 000 cash or property

         An order consistent with this Opinion will immediately follow




DATED March              5      2021                                é é 7% 77/44 £1
                                                                        Kathleen Mac ay
                                                                     Judge ofthe Superior Court
                                                                        ofthe Viigin Islands

ATTEST
TAM RA CHARL
Clerk           Coun
BY                 M                        W
         L0       M BOYNES
         Ch fDeputy Clerk 5 / a / 9619-)



3" The Court also take: into cunsidetauon that his cast: has not progressed to trial as expected since all jury trials
have been held in abcyancc since March 2020 due to the unset ofthe COVl 19 pandemiL