United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
H. THOMPSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
court is again presented with the question whether defendant
Mardedeus Mack should be continued on conditional release.
For the reasons below, the court will order that his
conditional release be terminated and that he be released and
2012, Mack was charged in a five-count federal indictment
with possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possessing a firearm
in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c); possessing marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 844(a); and possessing a firearm and
ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1).
upon medical evidence that Mack has borderline intellectual
functioning, or moderate mental retardation, and, at that
time, suffered from auditory hallucinations and paranoid
behavior consistent with general psychosis or schizophrenia,
this court, in 2013, found that he had a mental disease or
defect that rendered him not competent to stand trial.
See United States v. Mack, No. 2:14cr232, 2013 WL
4874138, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2013) (Thompson, J.). The
court later, in 2014, found that there was not a substantial
probability that he could be restored to competency. See
United States v. Mack, No. 2:14cr232, 2014 WL 2109860,
at *3 (M.D. Ala. May 20, 2014) (Thompson, J.).
finding Mack not restorable, the court held a hearing
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4246 and 4247(d) to
determine whether releasing him would create a substantial
risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to
the property of another due to his mental diseases or defect.
Based on the evidence presented, which included a
determination by the physicians at the Federal Bureau of
Prisons that he was not a danger to others, the court, in
2014, authorized his conditional release subject to standard,
as well as other conditions of release. See United States
v. Mack, No. 2:12cr232, 2014 WL 6965409, at *2 (M.D.
Ala. Dec. 8, 2014) (Thompson, J.). The court further ordered
that, because his conditional release is indefinite, it would
hold reviews, approximately every six months, on two issues:
(1) whether the conditions for his release should be
terminated and he should be unconditionally released; and (2)
whether the conditions for his release should be modified and
subjected to a later review by this court. Id. at
January 2018 Status Conference
over three years later, and the question before the court is
whether Mack should now be released unconditionally rather
conditionally. The court held a status conference on January
19, 2018, and evidence presented to the court demonstrated
Mack is doing quite well: he remains reunited with his wife;
manages his finances responsibly; continues to attend
mental-health and substance-abuse treatment; and, of
particular importance to the court, is taking his medication
regularly. Altogether, the evidence presented to the court
shows that Mack has achieved stability.
18 U.S.C. § 4246(e), the court at any time may--after a
hearing to determine whether a person has recovered from his
mental disease or defect to such an extent that his release
would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person or serious damage to the property of
another--eliminate his regimen of medical, psychiatric, or
psychological care or treatment and release him
unconditionally. In 2014, the court placed Mack on
conditional, rather than unconditional release (despite the
finding of the psychiatrists at the Bureau of Prisons that
his release met the § 4246(e) criteria), in order to
provide him with support services integral to his well-being
and long-term stability. Evidence presented at the January 19
status conference now shows that Mack has benefitted from the
last three years of support. He can now manage his
medications, mental-health and substance-abuse treatment,
finances, and personal affairs independent of court
supervision. These accomplishments, together with the Bureau
of Prisons' recommendation from 2014 and the consensus of
the government, probation, and defense counsel that Mack has
recovered from his mental issues to the extent unconditional
release would no longer create substantial risk of bodily
injury to another person or serious damage to the property of
another, compel the court to find the same. The court
therefore finds the conditions of § 4246(e) are met:
Mack is not a danger to others or others' property.
Indeed, Mack has shown the court that he can live a stable,
only remaining issue is whether the case should be dismissed
with or without prejudice. Because the parties agree that the
indictment against Mack should be dismissed with prejudice,
the court does not reach the issue. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 48.
day has been a long time coming, and the court commends
United States Probation Officer Marcus Simmons, defense
counsel Stephen Ganter, as well as the entire staff of the
Federal Defender's Office, for their tremendous effort
and dedication to achieving the stability and well-being of
Mack. Their efforts demonstrate the capacity of the legal
system to have a positive impact on a person's life.
* * *
Because the court finds that his release would no longer
create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another or
serious damage to the property of another, and, in fact, that
defendant Mardedeus Mack can maintain stability without court
supervision, it is ORDERED that:
Defendant Mardedeus Mack's term of conditional release is
terminated and he is released and discharged unconditionally.
government's oral motion to dismiss the indictment with
prejudice (doc. no. 157) is granted and the indictment