Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jackson Daniel Bowers, Petitioner v. United States
Supreme Court briefAug 1, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
APPENDIX
Table of Contents
Appendix A
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, published Opinion
entered March 4, 2022……………………………………….………………………1a
Appendix B
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, unpublished Opinion
entered March 4, 2022…………………………………………………….………..10a
Appendix C
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington,
Transcript of May 10, 2023 Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing in
2:19-CR-00051-TOR-1………………………………………………...………...….16a
Appendix D
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington,
Supervised Release Revocation Petitions dated February 9, 2023 (ECF No.
41) and April 17, 2023 (ECF No. 51) in 2:19-CR-00051-TOR-1……………...43a
Appendix E
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington,
Judgment on revocation of supervised release violations dated May 10, 2023
in 2:19-CR-00051-TOR-1...……………………...……………………………...….47a
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 1 of 9
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
No. 23-902
D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00051TOR-1
JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS,
OPINION
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 20, 2024
Seattle, Washington
Filed March 4, 2025
Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown,
and Ana de Alba, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge de Alba
Appendix A, 1 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 2 of 9
SUMMARY *
Criminal Law
The panel affirmed the district court’s revocation of
Jackson Daniel Bowers’ supervised release in a case in
which Bowers argued that Article III, section 2 of the
Constitution affords supervisees the right to a jury trial in
revocation proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
In Bowers’ view, Article III and the Sixth Amendment
are independent from each other and the Sixth Amendment
trial-by-jury rights are more limited than those rights under
Article III.
Joining the Seventh Circuit, the panel held that Article
III’s jury provision and the Sixth Amendment are equivalent
in scope. Although there are textual differences between
Article III’s “all Crimes” and the Sixth Amendment’s “all
criminal prosecutions,” Bowers’ reading of this difference is
not supported by the history of Article III and the Sixth
Amendment. History and precedent make clear that the
Sixth Amendment was meant to complement Article III,
section 2, not to supersede or compete with it. It follows that
a right not triggered by the Sixth Amendment cannot be
independently triggered by Article III.
The panel disposed of Bowers’ other claims in a
concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
*
This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
Appendix A, 2 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 3 of 9
COUNSEL
Paul T. Crane (argued), Attorney, Appellate Section,
Criminal Division; Lisa H. Miller, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General; Nicole M. Argentieri, Acting Assistant
Attorney General; United States Department of Justice,
Washington, D.C.; Caitlin A. Baunsgard and Ian L.
Garriques, Assistant United States Attorneys; Vanessa R.
Waldref, United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s
Office, United States Department of Justice, Spokane,
Washington; for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Molly Winston (argued), Assistant Federal Public Defender;
Carter L. Powers Beggs, Trial Attorney; Federal Public
Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho, Spokane,
Washington; Colin G. Prince, Federal Public Defender,
Connelly Law Offices PPLC, Tacoma, Washington; for
Defendant-Appellant.
Jacob Schuman, Penn State Law School, University Park,
Pennsylvania, for Amici Curiae Criminal Law Scholars.
Appendix A, 3 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 4 of 9
OPINION
DE ALBA, Circuit Judge:
Jackson Daniel Bowers challenges his revocation of
supervised release by presenting a novel constitutional
argument: that Article III, section 2 of the Constitution
affords supervisees the right to a jury trial in revocation
proceedings held under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 1 We disagree
and find that Article III’s jury trial guarantee is equivalent in
scope to the Sixth Amendment’s. As such, Bowers’ Article
III claim is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and we affirm
the revocation of his supervised release.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
In 2019, pursuant to a guilty plea, Bowers was convicted
of possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(C). He was sentenced to 36
months imprisonment to be followed by three years of
supervised release. In 2023, after Bowers completed his
prison time and while on supervised release, his probation
officer filed two separate petitions with the district court
alleging that Bowers violated his supervised release by
committing two state crimes: (1) fourth-degree assault, and
(2) violating a protective order. The probation officer
recommended the district court revoke Bowers’ supervised
release. While the revocation hearing was pending, Bowers
resolved his criminal charges in state court by entering a
deferral agreement without admitting to guilt.
1
We dispose of Bowers’ other claims in a concurrently filed
memorandum disposition.
Appendix A, 4 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 5 of 9
Subsequently, the district court held a supervised release
revocation hearing. During the hearing, Bowers invoked his
right to a jury trial. 2 The district court denied Bowers’
request and proceeded with the revocation hearing without
empaneling a jury. After receiving evidence and listening to
testimony, the district court found by a preponderance of the
evidence that Bowers committed fourth-degree assault and
violated a protective order in violation of his supervised
release. The district court revoked Bowers’ supervised
release and resentenced him to nine months imprisonment
followed by 36 months of supervised release. Bowers
appealed the district court’s order, arguing that, separate
from the jury trial right contained in the Sixth Amendment,
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution guarantees the right
to a jury trial at revocation hearings.
II. Legal Standard
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a claim that a sentence violates a defendant’s
constitutional right. United States v. Henderson, 998 F.3d
1071, 1073–74 (9th Cir. 2021).
III. Discussion
Bowers, conceding that circuit precedent forecloses any
argument that the Sixth Amendment guarantees supervisees
a right to a jury trial in revocation proceedings, 3 urges us to
2
The parties dispute whether Bowers properly raised his Article III
argument below and, therefore, whether we should review his claim de
novo or for plain error. We need not decide this question because,
regardless of the standard of review, the result is the same.
3
We have consistently held that defendants facing revocation of
supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) have no Sixth
Appendix A, 5 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 6 of 9
locate such a right in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the
Constitution. He alleges that the jury trial guarantees in the
Sixth Amendment and Article III are “markedly different”
because the Sixth Amendment limits its scope to “all
criminal prosecutions” while Article III applies to “all
Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment.” In short, Bowers
sees Article III and the Sixth Amendment as independent
from each other and the Sixth Amendment trial by jury rights
as being more limited than those rights under Article III.
Recently, in a similar claim, the Seventh Circuit declined to
hold that supervisees have a right to a jury trial on supervised
release proceedings under Article III. See United States v.
Carpenter, 104 F.4th 655 (7th Cir. 2024). Bowers asks this
Court to create a circuit split by being the first court to hold
otherwise. We decline to do so.
In our system of criminal adjudication, one of the most
fundamental and sacred procedural rights is that of a trial by
jury. Our Founding Fathers considered this right so
important that they enshrined it both in Article III of the
Constitution and in the Sixth Amendment. Article III,
enacted in 1787, states,
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of
Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such
Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed; but when
not committed within any State, the Trial
Amendment right to a jury trial. See, e.g., United States v. Henderson,
998 F.3d 1071, 1072 (9th Cir. 2021); United States v. GavilanesOcaranza, 772 F.3d 624, 629 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Santana,
526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Huerta-Pimental,
445 F.3d 1220, 1224–25 (9th Cir. 2006).
Appendix A, 6 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 7 of 9
shall be at such Place or Places as the
Congress may by Law have directed.
U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3. As relevant here, the Sixth
Amendment, which was enacted in 1791, states, in part, that
“[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
State and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Although there are textual differences between Article
III’s “all Crimes” and the Sixth Amendment’s “all criminal
prosecutions,” Bowers’ reading of this difference is not
supported by the history of Article III or the Sixth
Amendment. Article III’s jury provision was enshrined in
the Constitution to preserve the right to a jury trial that was
recognized at common law. See Felix Frankfurter & Thomas
G. Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses and the Constitutional
Guaranty of Trial by Jury, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 917, 968–70
(1926). During the ratification period, Article III’s jury
provision was heavily scrutinized. See Williams v. Florida,
399 U.S. 78, 86–103 (1970) (summarizing the history of the
common law understanding of the right to trial by jury and
the criticism Article III, Section 2 received); see also Callan
v. Wilson, 127 U.S. 540, 549–50 (1888). This scrutiny was
the result of fears that the provision’s general language failed
to preserve certain incidents of the common law rights to a
jury trial such as a “jury of the vicinage” or a right to a jury
trial in civil cases. Williams, 399 U.S. at 92–94 & n.35
(“While Article III provided for venue, it did not impose the
explicit juror-residence requirement associated with the
concept of ‘vicinage.’”); see also Smith v. United States, 599
U.S. 236, 248 (2023). It was also feared that the generality
of Article III’s language would allow for secret trials, for the
Appendix A, 7 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 8 of 9
government’s ability to postpone proceedings indefinitely,
or for the use of testimonial hearsay in place of live
testimony. Carpenter, 104 F.4th at 661 (quoting Schick v.
United States, 195 U.S. 64, 78 (1904) and citing Crawford
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42–47 (2004)).
These concerns “furnished part of the impetus for
introducing amendments to the Constitution that ultimately
resulted in the jury trial provisions of the Sixth and Seventh
Amendments.” Williams, 399 U.S. at 94; see Schick, 195
U.S. at 78 (“[I]n order to meet the objections of its
opponents, and to remove all possible grounds of uneasiness
on the subject, the 6th Amendment was adopted, in which
the essential features of the trial required by § 2 of article 3
are set forth.”). In other words, the Sixth Amendment was
adopted to remedy attacks on Article III, and the Supreme
Court has consistently construed the former as reflecting the
meaning of the latter rather than supplanting it. See Callan,
127 U.S. at 549; Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 298
(1930), abrogated on other grounds by Williams v. Florida,
399 U.S. 78 (1970); United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123,
142–43 (1936); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 39 (1942);
Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206, 210 (2017). For
these reasons, Bowers’ argument that Article III and the
Sixth Amendment trial rights are “markedly different” is
unsupported by history and precedent.
In United States v. Carpenter, the Seventh Circuit
recently rejected a similar claim. After briefly addressing
the history of Article III and the Sixth Amendment, the
Seventh Circuit noted that “[h]istory and precedent make
clear that the Sixth Amendment was meant to complement
Article III, § 2, not to supersede or compete with it.” 104
F.4th at 662. It, therefore, held that both provisions are
identical in scope and that “a proceeding that does not trigger
Appendix A, 8 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 55.1, Page 9 of 9
the Sixth Amendment cannot independently trigger Article
III, § 2.” Id. For the reasons explained supra, we agree with
this reasoning, and we now join the Seventh Circuit in
holding that Article III’s jury provision and the Sixth
Amendment are equivalent in scope.
IV. Conclusion
Current circuit precedent holds that supervisees do not
have a right to a jury trial on supervised release proceedings
under the Sixth Amendment and we are bound by this
precedent. Since Article III’s jury provision and the Sixth
Amendment’s are equivalent in scope, it follows that a right
not triggered by the Sixth Amendment cannot be
independently triggered by Article III. Accordingly, Bowers
revocation of supervised release is AFFIRMED.
Appendix A, 9 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 1 of 6
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 4 2025
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 23-902
D.C. No.
2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
MEMORANDUM*
JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 20, 2024
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jackson Daniel Bowers appeals the district court order
revoking his supervised release and imposing a new sentence.1 We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
Bowers’ claim that Article III, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution
guarantees the right to a jury trial in supervised release revocation proceedings is
addressed in a concurrently filed opinion.
Appendix B, 10 of 51
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 2 of 6
1. Bowers claims that the district court admitted hearsay from multiple
declarants in violation of his right to confront witnesses under the Fifth
Amendment’s Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1.
Specifically, at the revocation hearing, a probation officer testified to (1)
statements that Ms. Mendoza provided to a police officer after Bowers allegedly
assaulted her, (2) statements from the police officer who interviewed Ms.
Mendoza, and (3) statements from a police officer who reviewed a jail call in
which Bowers purportedly violated a restraining order. “Although the Federal
Rules of Evidence do not strictly apply to revocation proceedings,” United States
v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 987 (9th Cir. 2005), admission of hearsay evidence must
satisfy the Fifth Amendment right to due process. See United States v. Perez, 526
F.3d 543, 548 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, “every releasee is guaranteed the right to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses at a revocation hearing, unless the
government shows good cause for not producing the witnesses.” United States v.
Comito, 177 F.3d 1166, 1170 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Fed. R. Crim. P.
32.1(b)(1)(B)(iii) (providing for an “opportunity to question adverse witnesses” at
revocation hearings). “[T]he court must weigh the releasee's interest in his
constitutionally guaranteed right to confrontation against the Government's good
cause for denying it.” Comito, 177 F.3d at 1170.
By objecting to the “nature of the proceedings” after the district court
2
Appendix B, 11 of 51
23-902
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 3 of 6
admitted hearsay statements from Ms. Mendoza, Bowers preserved his claim for
appeal. See Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. 169, 174 (2020) (“The
question is simply whether the claimed error was ‘brought to the court’s
attention.’” (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b))); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 51(b).
Thus, we review it de novo, Perez, 526 F.3d at 547, and subject it to harmless error
analysis, United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003).
Here, the district court erred when it failed to perform the Comito balancing
test or make an express finding that the interests of justice did not require Ms.
Mendoza to appear at the hearing. Comito, 177 F.3d at 1170 (noting that a district
court’s failure to perform the balancing test constitutes error). But the error was
harmless because the probation officer’s testimony had substantial indicia of
reliability and Bowers’ assertion of self-defense implied that an assault occurred.
State v. Pottorff, 156 P.3d 955, 958 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (“A defendant asserting
self-defense is ordinarily required to admit an assault occurred.”). Further, Bowers
failed to produce evidence to support his self-defense argument.
Because Bowers did not object to the admission of hearsay statements of the
officer who interviewed Ms. Mendoza, we review his claim for plain error. “Plain
error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United
States v. Depue, 912 F.3d 1227, 1232 (9th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (quoting United
States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009)). “If these conditions are
3
Appendix B, 12 of 51
23-902
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 4 of 6
met, the reviewing court has the discretion to grant relief so long as the error
‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Hammons, 558 F.3d at 1103).
The district court committed error, and the error was plain, by failing to
conduct the Comito balancing test. Comito, 177 F.3d at 1170; Valdivia v.
Schwarzenegger, 599 F.3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The application of a
balancing test to the admission of hearsay evidence in [supervised release]
revocation hearings is not an open question in this circuit.”). But Bowers’
substantial rights were not affected because the probation officer’s testimony had
substantial indicia of reliability. Bowers impliedly admitted to the assault by
asserting self-defense, and Bowers failed to produce any evidence to support his
defense. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (stating that an
error “affect[s] substantial rights” when it “affected the outcome of the district
court proceedings.”).
We also review the admission of hearsay statements from the officer who
reviewed the jail call for plain error. As with the admission of the other two
hearsay statements, the district court erred by failing to conduct a Comito
balancing test. But here too, the district court’s error did not affect Bowers’
substantial rights. Although the evidence before the district court lacked indicia of
reliability because the police officer’s statements were neither written nor sworn,
4
Appendix B, 13 of 51
23-902
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 5 of 6
Bowers admitted to contacting Ms. Mendoza, claiming that the call was accidental.
Nevertheless, he failed to provide evidence to support this defense or explain how
he “accidentally” dialed Ms. Mendoza’s number from jail. Thus, Bowers cannot
show that his substantial rights were affected.
2. We review for plain error Bowers’ claim that the district court violated
the party presentation principle. Bower alleges that the district court was the
“grand jury, prosecutor, petit jury, and sentencing court” and that it left the role of
the prosecution in limbo by not accepting the parties’ recommendation to dismiss
the violations. The party presentation principle requires “the parties to frame the
issues for decision and assign[s] to courts the role of neutral arbiter.” Greenlaw v.
United States, 554 U.S. 237, 243 (2008). Here, the district court did not violate the
party presentation principle because it acted well within its statutory sentencing
discretion, which includes monitoring a defendant’s supervision. See 18 U.S.C. §
3583(a), (e) (authorizing district courts to impose, terminate, extend, or revoke a
defendant’s term of supervised release). Also, the district court’s power to
supervise defendants on supervised release necessarily includes the power to
approve or disapprove any agreement between the prosecution and the defendant.
3. Finally, Bowers claims that the district court has insufficient evidence to
conclude that he violated the terms of his supervised release by committing assault
and violating a protective order. “On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to a
5
Appendix B, 14 of 51
23-902
Case: 23-902, 03/04/2025, DktEntry: 56.1, Page 6 of 6
supervised release revocation, we ask whether, viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the government, any rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” United
States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v.
Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As discussed above, the district court had sufficient evidence, including
admissions from Bowers about engaging in the conduct in question, to find him in
violation of his supervised release by a preponderance of the evidence.
AFFIRMED.
6
Appendix B, 15 of 51
23-902
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.219 Page 1 of 27
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS,
Defendant.
7
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
May 10, 2023
Spokane, Washington
Revocation of Supervised
Release Hearing
Pages 1 - 27
BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS O. RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
8
9 APPEARANCES:
10
For the Plaintiff:
CAITLIN A. BAUNSGARD
U.S. Attorney's Office
920 W. Riverside Ave., Ste. 300
P.O. Box 1494
Spokane, Washington 99210-1494
For the Defendant:
CARTER L. POWERS BEGGS
Federal Defenders of Eastern
Washington & Idaho
10 N. Post St., Ste. 700
Spokane, Washington 99201
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Official Court Reporter:
21
22
Allison R. Anderson, RMR, CRR, CCR
United States District Courthouse
P.O. Box 700
Spokane, Washington 99210
(509) 458-3465
23
24
Proceedings reported by mechanical stenography; transcript
25 produced by computer-aided transcription.
Appendix C, 16 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.220 Page 2 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
2
1
(Court convened on May 10, 2023, at 8:57 a.m.)
2
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: The matter now before the Court
3 is The United States of America versus Jackson Daniel Bowers,
4 Case No. 2:19-cr-0051-TOR.
This is the time set for a
5 revocation of supervised release hearing.
6
Counsel, please state your appearances for the Court and
7 record, beginning with the government.
8
MS. BAUNSGARD: Good morning, Your Honor. Caitlin
9 Baunsgard on behalf of the United States.
10
THE COURT: Good morning.
11
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Good morning, Your Honor. Carter
12 Powers Beggs on behalf of Jackson Bowers.
13
THE COURT: And good morning to both of you.
14
This is the time set to resolve the two allegations of
15 violation of supervised release.
16
Mr. Powers Beggs, I understand from your memo that your
17 client's not admitting the violations.
18
MR. POWERS BEGGS: That is correct, Your Honor.
19
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Hanson, could I have you
20 come forward and take the witness stand, please.
21 sworn in by the clerk.
22
MELISSA HANSON,
23
having first been duly sworn,
24
testified under oath as follows:
25
Appendix C, 17 of 51
I'll have you
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.221 Page 3 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Examination by The Court
3
EXAMINATION
1
2 BY THE COURT:
3 Q
Just for the record, Ms. Hanson, could you state your
4 occupation.
5 A
I'm a United States probation officer.
6 Q
And are you familiar with Mr. Bowers?
7 A
Yes, I am.
8 Q
How?
9 A
I've supervised Mr. Bowers as of recent.
10 Q
All right. And the Court has received two violation
11 reports.
Could we go over those?
12 A
Yes, we can.
13 Q
The first violation report indicates that the defendant
14 allegedly committed -15
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Your Honor? Apologies, Your Honor.
16 I just wanted to be clear that our -- the parties here's
17 position going into this hearing was a joint recommendation to
18 dismiss the violations.
Obviously, the Court would have to go
19 forward with that recommendation, but I just didn't want -- if
20 the Court was inclined to grant that, I didn't want to waste any
21 time.
22
THE COURT: The Court -- the allegations are that
23 Mr. Bowers violated the trust that the Court placed in him.
24 It's not up to the U.S. Attorney's Office or the defense
25 attorney to dismiss the charges.
It's up to the Court.
Appendix C, 18 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.222 Page 4 of 27
4
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Examination by The Court
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Yes, Your Honor. I just wanted to
1
2 on the record make sure that that was clear and there wasn't any
3 confusion about that.
THE COURT: I understand.
4
5 Q
Thank you, Your Honor.
(BY THE COURT) Mr. Bowers was arrested for alleged
6 violation of fourth-degree assault; is that correct?
7 A
That is correct. However, he wasn't initially arrested
8 under those charges.
He had come into the Probation Office, and
9 with our warrant being issued for that allegation is when he was
10 arrested.
11 Q
I see. And then your report is signed under the penalty of
12 perjury.
Instead of going through the entire report, the
13 report's part of the file.
Are there any corrections that you'd
14 like to make to your report on that issue?
15 A
No corrections outside of what Mr. Powers Beggs has -- had
16 noted, that the parties have an agreement.
17 Q
Yes. The agreement doesn't bind the Court, though.
18 A
Correct.
19
THE COURT: And then so the Court accepts -- and I
20 believe it's ECF -- well, on my docket, it's ECF 22, but that's
21 violation No. 1, a report dated February 9th, 2023.
22 Q
(BY THE COURT) And then there was a second report
23 concerning allegations that he violated the state's no-contact
24 order, and that report is dated April 17th, 2023.
25 any corrections to make to that report?
Appendix C, 19 of 51
Do you have
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.223 Page 5 of 27
5
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Examination by The Court
1 A
I do not.
2
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Your Honor?
3
THE COURT: Yes.
4
MR. POWERS BEGGS: I would object on two fronts. One,
5 Mr. Bowers has not been arraigned on that violation No. 2 is my
6 understanding.
Additionally, Mr. Bowers wishes to formally
7 invoke his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial on these
8 matters.
The --
9
THE COURT: He doesn't have a jury trial right on
10 supervised release.
11
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Your Honor, there are four justices
12 in the majority in Haymond in 2019 who would support that there
13 would be a jury trial.
I understand the case law is against me,
14 but I did want to preserve that issue.
15
THE COURT: Mr. Bowers, did you get a copy of the
16 petition alleging violation No. 2?
17
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. Yes, sir.
18
THE COURT: And you understand you have a right to
19 counsel, which you have.
You have a right to remain silent
20 because anything you say can and will be used against you.
You
21 have a right to a probable cause hearing with respect to
22 violation No. 2.
Are there any other rights that I need to
23 advise you of?
24
25
Mr. Powers Beggs?
MR. POWERS BEGGS: I believe he has a right to remain
Appendix C, 20 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.224 Page 6 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Cross-Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
6
1 silent as well.
2
THE COURT: I said that.
3
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Apologies if you said that. None
4 other that I would point to, Your Honor, although we are -5 maintain that he has a right to a jury trial, but understood.
6
7
THE COURT: No, he doesn't.
All right. The Court accepts the statements of Officer
8 Hanson in the second violation as well.
9
10
Mr. Powers Beggs, do you want to cross-examine Ms. Hanson?
MR. POWERS BEGGS: I would, Your Honor. Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
11
12 BY MR. POWERS BEGGS:
13 Q
Good morning, Ms. Hanson.
14 A
Good morning.
15 Q
How long have you been a probation officer for?
16 A
For this district, approximately just short of ten years.
17 Q
And how long have you been supervising Mr. Bowers for?
18 A
I didn't initially supervise him when he released; so
19 roughly six months.
20 Q
There's two violations before the Court; and while they are
21 factually connected, I would like to address each of them kind
22 of in turn.
I'll start with violation No. 2. You stipulated
23 that this report was correct to the best of your knowledge.
24 A
Correct.
25 Q
Okay. However, it states that on February 2nd, Mr. Jackson
Appendix C, 21 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.225 Page 7 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Cross-Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
7
1 Bowers was served in Spokane County jail; is that correct?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
Okay. Well, it is my understanding that Mr. Bowers was not
4 detained until February 9th, 2023, following the February 8th,
5 2023, incident.
6 A
I believe that is correct; so there may be a typo in my
7 date.
8 Q
Okay. Understood. And what investigation did you take
9 into these violations?
10 A
For violation No. 2?
11 Q
No. 2, sorry.
12 A
For No. 2?
13 Q
Yes.
14 A
The information I received from the -- I believe it was the
15 detective indicated that they reviewed his jail phone calls and
16 that there's a PIN code or something of the sort that the
17 inmates at the Spokane County jail use, and his was used to call
18 the victim of the no-contact order.
19 Q
What was the manner of your communication with the
20 detective?
21 A
By telephone, I believe.
22 Q
Phone call. Okay. Did the detective provide any written
23 documentation of this or any other evidence of this?
24 A
No.
25 Q
Okay. Did the detective mention any other phone calls made
Appendix C, 22 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.226 Page 8 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Cross-Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
1 by Mr. Bowers that day on that PIN number?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Okay. Did he -- detective mention the length of the phone
4 call?
5 A
It was very brief.
6 Q
Very brief. Did he -- detective mention anything that was
7 said on the phone call?
8 A
I believe both individuals had said hi to each other.
9 Q
Okay.
10 A
And after the victim had inquired who was calling, I
11 believe the phone call was ended after that.
12 Q
Okay. And to be clear, that is from the detective telling
13 you what was on the phone call, not that you had personally
14 reviewed it.
15 A
Correct.
16 Q
Okay. So just to clarify, then, just to lay it out, you
17 were contacted by the detective by phone.
He told you what the
18 prospective violation was.
19 A
Yes.
20 Q
And that is all of the evidence that we have before the
21 Court at this moment.
22 A
I believe so.
23 Q
Okay. And no other evidence was provided to Mr. Bowers or
24 any of the parties beyond that?
25 A
Not -- not by myself.
Appendix C, 23 of 51
8
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.227 Page 9 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Cross-Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
9
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Okay. I have no further questions
1
2 on that.
3
THE COURT: Ms. Baunsgard, any questions?
4
MS. BAUNSGARD: I do not.
5
THE COURT: Ms. Hanson --
6
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Oh, I apologize, Your Honor. I was
7 -- just for violation No. 2.
I do have questions for
8 violation 1 if you would rather me to go up there as well.
9 Sorry.
10
11 Q
THE COURT: Please finish.
(BY MR. POWERS BEGGS) Ms. Hanson, in regard to the events
12 of February 8th, when were you first made aware of these events?
13 A
I believe it was the next -- it was either that day or the
14 next day; I can't recall at the moment.
15 Q
And to be clear, you -- what action did you take after
16 receiving those -- that news?
17 A
I completed a petition for the Court.
18 Q
Okay. Did you contact Mr. Bowers as well?
19 A
I did at some point because he came into the office; and by
20 that time, the warrant was issued, and so he was taken into
21 custody at the Probation Office.
22 Q
So he turned himself in on the violations, correct?
23 A
He -- I wouldn't say he turned himself in on the
24 violations, but he did report as directed.
25 Q
Okay. And what -- what evidence was underlying your filing
Appendix C, 24 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.228 Page 10 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Cross-Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
10
1 of the violation report in this -- in this case?
2 A
In part, it was the police reports I had received. I did
3 review some body cam footage, and I don't recall if that came -4 it had to have come after, I think.
This petition came rather
5 quickly so I think the body cam footage came after the fact.
6 Q
Did you review the body cam footage at all?
7 A
In part. I don't think I saw it in entirety.
8
MR. POWERS BEGGS: And I would just clarify the
9 Court's record that we have been provided the body cam footage
10 and the arrest reports.
11 Q
(BY MR. POWERS BEGGS) Have you had any contact with
12 Ms. Diaz-Mendoza, like, after this -- like, leading up or before
13 these events in question?
14 A
We had some minimal contact prior, but most of the contact
15 has been after -- after the incident.
16 Q
Okay. So you have maintained contact with Ms. Diaz-Mendoza
17 after the violation officially was filed?
18 A
I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?
19 Q
You have -- you've maintained contact or communication with
20 Diaz-Mendoza after -21 A
There has been some communication, yes.
22 Q
Okay. When Mr. Bowers came in, did you ask him about any
23 of the events in question?
24 A
I think all I said was I asked him what was going on.
25 Q
Do you remember what he responded?
Appendix C, 25 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.229 Page 11 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
M. Hanson - Re-Examination by The Court
1 A
2
11
He -- he had indicated it was self-defense.
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Okay. I have no further questions
3 on this, Your Honor.
Thank you.
4
THE COURT: Ms. Baunsgard, any questions?
5
MS. BAUNSGARD: No questions from me, Judge.
6
THE COURT: All right.
RE-EXAMINATION
7
8 BY THE COURT:
9 Q
Ms. Hanson, on violation No. 2, was the defendant served
10 with a no-contact order prior to communicating with the victim
11 on February 22nd, 2023?
12 A
He was. And again, I apologize. The February 2nd date has
13 to be a typo.
14 Q
Yes, I understand. But he was served with the no-contact
15 order prior to the phone call?
16 A
17
Yes, he was.
THE COURT: All right. I have no further questions.
18 You can step down.
19
20
Mr. Powers Beggs, any witnesses or testimony?
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Your Honor, I have several
21 declarations and statements from Mr. Bowers' family law case
22 that I would like to introduce.
Additionally, I have Mr. Drake
23 White, who was with Ms. Bowers -- Mr. Bowers on February 8th who
24 would -- we would like to call as -- for testimony as well.
25
THE COURT: Please proceed.
Appendix C, 26 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.230 Page 12 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
12
MR. POWERS BEGGS: I would like to call Mr. Drake
1
2 White to the witness stand.
THE COURT: Sir, if you could raise your right hand
3
4 and be sworn by the clerk.
5
DRAKE WHITE,
6
called as a witness by the Defendant,
7
having first been duly sworn,
8
testified under oath as follows:
THE COURT: Come over here. Make yourself comfortable
9
10 on the witness stand.
The microphone's adjustable. Use it.
11
THE WITNESS: Okay.
12
THE COURT: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
13
14 BY MR. POWERS BEGGS:
15 Q
Good morning, Mr. White.
16 A
Good morning.
17 Q
What is your true and full and correct name?
18 A
Drake Anthony White.
19 Q
And how old are you?
20 A
29.
21 Q
Okay.
22
THE COURT: You're going to have to speak into the
23 microphone.
24 A
29. Sorry.
25 Q
(BY MR. POWERS BEGGS) How long have you known Mr. Bowers
Appendix C, 27 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.231 Page 13 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
13
1 for?
2 A
About 15 years.
3 Q
And have you stayed in pretty good contact with Mr. Bowers
4 during that period?
5 A
Yeah.
6 Q
Okay. So you would say that you know him quite well?
7 A
Yeah.
8 Q
That being said, would you take that friendship into
9 account and try to lie and -- or cover for him in any sense -10 A
No.
11 Q
-- in a court proceeding?
12 A
Not a chance.
13 Q
Okay. Were you with Mr. Bowers on February 8th?
14 A
Yes, sir.
15 Q
Okay. When did you first encounter Mr. Bowers on that day?
16 A
We went to Planet Fitness in the Valley to work out, as we
17 were just getting back in the gym.
18 Q
He was kind of pushing me.
And so you had been going to the gym for a little bit
19 before that?
20 A
Possibly a week.
21 Q
And what happened at the gym?
22 A
His phone started ding, ding; you know, it was like the
23 find-my-iPhone tone.
24 Q
And do you have any -- like, can you explain to the Court
25 what the find-my-iPhone feature is?
Appendix C, 28 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.232 Page 14 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
1 A
14
Like, if someone else on the other end is -- say you lose
2 your phone and you're trying to find it, they can ping it.
3 Like, if you lose it in the couch at home, you can press the
4 button over and over, and it will ding-ding-ding consistently.
5 That was happening until I had looked over, and he got off the
6 treadmill and was walking outside.
I shortly followed.
7 Q
Okay. And what happened after Mr. Bowers walked outside?
8 A
I believe they were in a -- like, getting in an argument,
9 but to my understanding what I had heard when I walked out was
10 her threatening, you know, to throw stuff in the dumpster and
11 him say he'll just come get his stuff right now and move out.
12 Q
And did you take Mr. Bowers back home at that time?
13 A
No, he drove himself, but he did ask me to use my truck to
14 help move if things were bad; and he called me shortly after,
15 and that's what I did was went over there with my pickup and
16 grabbed garbage bags full of his clothing.
17 Q
And did you hear anything else on that call when Mr. Bowers
18 was speaking to you?
19 A
No, not off the top of my head that I can recall. It was,
20 you know, pretty -- pretty normal, just an argument, and the
21 threatening of throwing his belongings away was pretty common.
22 Q
Okay. And what happened when you arrived at the residence?
23 A
When I arrived, I had walked upstairs. There's three
24 flights of stairs.
And we just did legs so I was Snapchatting
25 him, kind of telling him I wasn't too happy with him about
Appendix C, 29 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.233 Page 15 of 27
15
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
1 walking up the stairs.
And then I proceeded to knock on the
2 door, which Jackson answered the door bleeding from his lip.
3 And Katia was screaming -- or Valerie.
4 But, yeah, she was screaming.
I know her as Valerie.
And then the door -- you know, he
5 closed the door and, like, her -- I could hear her screaming and
6 some thuds.
And then he handed me a couple garbage bags, and it
7 looked like the head area and -- like, he was bleeding from his
8 lip still.
But I told him to take pictures and to just stay
9 calm and grab what he could grab and it was time to go.
Like,
10 he needs to leave this residence.
11 Q
I mean, did you hear any -- what the contents of the
12 screaming was inside or was it hard to decipher?
13 A
Derogatory terms. I don't know what I'm allowed to say
14 here.
She, you know, called him a derogatory F-word and the B-
15 word.
16 Q
Did Mr. Bowers -- did you hear anything of Mr. Bowers
17 responding?
18 A
Yeah. "Stop hitting me," and then "Get off," and then the
19 next time he had opened the door is when I told him, "We're
20 leaving."
21 Q
Like, you know, this isn't normal.
And did Ms. Mendoza -- did she talk to you at all during
22 this time?
23 A
Yes. In between one of the times he was giving me garbage
24 bags so I could run them down and put them in my truck, she
25 opened the door and was asking me to leave and said she had
Appendix C, 30 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.234 Page 16 of 27
16
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
1 everything under control and I was scaring her kids, which then
2 I proceeded to wave to J. and H.
3 scared of me.
They know me. They weren't
I think they were, you know, scared of her. But
4 as most kids, you know, when there's an argument going on,
5 they're going to react.
6 Q
And you mentioned the photos that Mr. Bowers took. Did he
7 send any of those to you?
8 A
Yeah, the ones that I had provided to the other guy's
9 email.
10 Q
And was -- was it this photo?
11 A
Yes.
MR. POWERS BEGGS: I would just like to provide the
12
13 Court the photo of Mr. Bowers.
14 Q
(BY MR. POWERS BEGGS) And you observed Mr. Bowers had a
15 split lip; is that correct?
16 A
Yeah, and just, like, red marks, you know, on his head and
17 neck.
When I observed Ms. Diaz, I mean, when we were speaking,
18 she looked like she was fresh off, you know, work.
19 it didn't look like she was in a scuffle.
It wasn't --
Her hair was
20 flattened straight is one of the main things I noticed.
21 I don't know.
Just --
That's something I just noticed. Her clothes
22 weren't sagging or anything, and she wanted me to leave, which,
23 I don't know, kind of made me think, you know, she wasn't
24 getting assaulted by any means.
Because we knew each other well
25 enough that if -- she knows me.
I wouldn't just sit by and
Appendix C, 31 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.235 Page 17 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
D. White - Direct Examination by Mr. Powers Beggs
1 watch any woman get hurt by a man.
17
I -- I do believe that she
2 would've asked me for some kind of help if that was what was
3 going on.
She's had me help with the kids. But there was none
4 of that.
She just wanted me to abruptly leave and not help him
5 move out.
6 Q
And you have -- you have helped care for their kids before?
7 A
Yeah.
8 Q
And then what happened as you left the residence?
9 A
I don't know if they were sheriffs or police officers, but
10 they -- they were walking up.
I mean, I waved at them to see if
11 they, you know, needed to talk to us, whatever.
12 anything.
They didn't say
So when we got on Pines, an officer got behind me. I
13 tried to pull over.
I throw my hands up at him to ask if he
14 wanted to ask questions if he was, you know, following behind me
15 because he wanted to talk.
He then took a left, and, you know,
16 we didn't ever have to -- you know, we didn't speak to any
17 police officers that night.
I -- they all seen me.
18 Q
And Mr. Bowers stayed the night at your place that night?
19 A
Yeah.
20
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Okay. I have no further questions.
21 Thank you.
22
THE COURT: Any cross-examination, Ms. Baunsgard?
23
MS. BAUNSGARD: Nothing from the government.
24
THE COURT: All right. You can step down.
25
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Appendix C, 32 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.236 Page 18 of 27
18
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
MR. POWERS BEGGS: The only final thing I would like
1
2 to add in terms of evidence is this sworn statement from Kenny
3 Heaton, who is Jackson's sister's husband, that was submitted as
4 a declaration in the family law proceedings.
And I would just
5 bring the Court's attention to about halfway through, that
6 Jackson had left; and just a few minutes later, Val got up to go
7 outside also.
"Both children jumped up and grabbed onto Val,
8 begging her to leave Daddy alone and sit down with them.
She
9 refused, handed the kids her phone to play on and stormed
10 outside.
11 smoke.
I was concerned so shortly after I went outside for a
Jackson was outside already smoking. I looked at him
12 and noticed the side of his face was red and he looked like he
13 had been punched.
I asked what happened. He said that Val had
14 slapped him."
15
In terms of evidence, I have no -- nothing else to provide
16 the Court.
17
THE COURT: Mr. Powers Beggs, this declaration of
18 Mr. Heaton, H-E-A-T-O-N, concerns December 16th of 2022.
19
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Yes, Your Honor. I offered it
20 to -21
THE COURT: What's the point?
22
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Just to prove that Mr. Bowers had
23 been -- there was evidence of Mr. Bowers being physically abused
24 by Ms. Mendoza previous to the events in question.
25
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
Appendix C, 33 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.237 Page 19 of 27
19
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Nothing evidentiary. I would like
2 to address the evidence before the Court at this time.
3
THE COURT: Go ahead.
4
MR. POWERS BEGGS: The key issue before the Court at
5 the moment is that Mr. Bowers has defenses to both these
6 charges, and the Court must find by a preponderance of the
7 evidence that he committed a state law violation.
8
In regards to violation No. 1, he is asserting self-
9 defense, and that is -- and I'm reading from State v. Woods, a
10 Washington appellate case, that a jury may find self-defense on
11 the basis of the defendant's subjective reasonable belief of
12 imminent harm from the victim.
13 threat of harm.
Mr. Bowers had an imminent
There was sounds, from Mr. White's testimony,
14 that he had -- that she (sic) said, "Stop hitting me."
He had a
15 split lip and has provided enough evidence to shift the burden
16 to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt -- in this
17 case, I guess, a preponderance otherwise.
And the standard does
18 not necessitate actual injury, but certainly actual injury would
19 make this inquiry simpler.
20
Additionally, in regards to the protective order, there
21 just simply has not been enough evidence provided for Mr. Bowers
22 to contest this charge.
I've spoken with Mr. Bowers. During
23 his state hearing, there was mention of a second exculpatory
24 phone call that he made to his mother shortly afterwards in
25 which -- paraphrasing -- said that he had accidently made
Appendix C, 34 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.238 Page 20 of 27
20
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1 contact with the person in question.
And that's incredibly
2 important -- and it also lines up with the very brief nature of
3 this phone call -- and that's because there needs to be a
4 willful element to violate a protective order.
And I'm reading
5 from State v. Sisemore, another Washington appellate case, in
6 that a defendant acts willfully if he acts knowingly with
7 respect to the material elements, including the contact element.
8
Thus Sisemore, in this case, violated the no-contact order
9 if he knowingly acted to contact or continued contact after an
10 original accidental contact.
However, he did not violate the
11 no-contact order if he accidently or inadvertently contacted the
12 person in question but immediately broke it off.
That's a very
13 valid defense to these charges, and it's not one that we have
14 either been provided evidence under 32.1 to contest fully or
15 that Mr. Bowers has had the opportunity to go with and prove
16 with that, and it's a defense, and it's one that should negate
17 the preponderance in this case with no actual evidence beyond a
18 phone call from a detective on the basis.
19
I also want for the Court's record to lay out a very brief
20 timeline of the impact that this has had on Mr. Bowers's life.
21 He was arrested on February 9th.
He was arraigned. He went to
22 a detention hearing in which he did not have the normal standard
23 for people accused of crimes in the first instance.
He had to
24 prove by clear and convincing evidence that he wasn't a danger
25 to the community or a flight risk.
Appendix C, 35 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.239 Page 21 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1
21
He then had a parenting plan hearing on February 16th that
2 he could not make because he was in federal custody, and then he
3 was eventually able to get transferred into state custody to
4 hopefully resolve the state matter on March 1st.
5
This entire proceeding has started with -- before any state
6 charges were actually filed.
Mr. Bowers has lost a lot from
7 this entire proceeding, and we would object to that, and we
8 would again maintain our procedural objection to Mr. Bowers'
9 lack of a jury trial in the sense to prove beyond a reasonable
10 doubt that he did not commit these violations.
That is all I
11 had prepared, Your Honor.
12
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Baunsgard, any statements?
13
MS. BAUNSGARD: No, thank you.
14
THE COURT: All right. The Court finds, based on the
15 sworn testimony before the Court, that there's actually no
16 evidence of self-defense.
The Court is aware that fourth-degree
17 assault, both parties may receive injuries.
The injuries were
18 observed by the deputies responding to the victim's allegation
19 of fourth-degree assault.
She had a cut lip, and she had -- I
20 don't want to say bruises.
She had swelling on her head where
21 she had been hit in the head.
Additionally, the evidence shows
22 that that phone call was made in violation of the no-contact
23 order.
24
So the evidence from Mr. White, he was outside the
25 apartment and did not witness the fourth-degree assault; and
Appendix C, 36 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.240 Page 22 of 27
22
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1 therefore, his testimony doesn't go to the merits of the
2 allegations.
3
The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the
4 defendant committed fourth-degree assault and violated the no5 contact order.
These are grade C violations. The defendant
6 presents to the Court with a criminal history III.
7 guideline range is 5 to 11 months.
The
The Court can impose up to
8 two years imprisonment with supervision to follow.
9
Mr. Bowers, you have an opportunity to make a statement.
10 You can make a statement in explanation or any statement you
11 want to make before the Court imposes sentence.
12
MR. POWERS BEGGS: Mr. Bowers will invoke his Fifth
13 Amendment and would not want to say anything at this time.
14
THE COURT: Mr. Bowers has no statements to make. Is
15 that what I'm hearing?
16
MR. POWERS BEGGS: That is correct, Your Honor. And I
17 would additionally object to the nature of the proceedings in
18 that Mr. Bowers has not had the opportunity to confront the
19 primary witness against him, Ms. Katia Mendoza.
20
THE COURT: Mr. Bowers, we've had a long history. We
21 started out in 2015, and you were sentenced in that case and
22 revoked a couple of times, two or three times, and now we've got
23 this new case.
Again, you've breached the trust of the Court.
24 This is unacceptable conduct.
And I don't have the date on it,
25 but you were using cocaine, and I accepted the recommendation of
Appendix C, 37 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.241 Page 23 of 27
23
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1 the Probation Office previously that they were going to work
2 with you; so we didn't have a supervised release revocation
3 hearing with respect to your use of illicit drugs.
4
In any event, the two violations before me that I find by a
5 preponderance of the evidence has been proven are serious
6 allegations and are unacceptable to the Court.
It is the
7 decision to sentence you to nine months in the custody of the
8 federal Bureau of Prisons.
9 the Marshals.
You're remanded to the custody of
I'm placing you back on a term of supervised
10 release for 36 months.
11
The mandatory conditions apply. You must not commit
12 another federal, state, or local crime.
You must not unlawfully
13 possess any controlled substance, including marijuana.
The 13
14 standard conditions of supervision that you've been on are
15 reimposed.
Do you waive reading of those 13 standard
16 conditions?
17
THE DEFENDANT: What's that?
18
THE COURT: Do you waive the reading of the 13
19 standard conditions of supervision?
20
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
21
THE COURT: And then I'm imposing five special
22 conditions of supervision.
23
No. 1, you must reside in a residential reentry center for
24 a period of up to 180 days at the direction of your supervising
25 officer.
Your participation in the programs offered by the RRC
Appendix C, 38 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.242 Page 24 of 27
24
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1 are limited to employment, education, treatment, religious
2 services, at the direction of your supervising officer.
You
3 shall abide by the rules and requirements of the facility.
4
No. 2, you must submit your person, residence, office,
5 vehicle, and belongings to a search conducted by a probation
6 officer at a sensible time and manner based upon reasonable
7 suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation of a
8 condition of supervision.
9 grounds for revocation.
Failure to submit to search is
You must warn persons with whom you
10 share a residence that the premises may be subject to search.
11
No. 3, you must undergo substance abuse evaluations and, if
12 indicated by a licensed/certified treatment provider, enter into
13 and successfully complete approved substance abuse treatment
14 programs, which could include inpatient treatment and aftercare
15 upon further order of the Court.
You must contribute to the
16 cost of treatment according to your ability and allow full
17 reciprocal disclosure between your supervising officer and
18 treatment provider.
19
No. 4, you must abstain from the use of illegal controlled
20 substances and must submit to urinalysis and sweat patch testing
21 as directed by your supervising officer, but no more than six
22 tests per month, in order to confirm abstinence from these
23 substances.
24
No. 5, you must not enter into or remain in any
25 establishment where alcohol is the primary item of sale.
Appendix C, 39 of 51
You
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.243 Page 25 of 27
25
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
1 must abstain from all alcohol and must submit to urinalysis and
2 breathalyzer testing as directed by your supervising officer,
3 but no more than six tests per month, in order to confirm
4 abstinence from this substance.
5
You have a right to appeal this sentence. If you intend to
6 appeal, you must file a notice of appeal within 14 days.
7 entitled to a transcript of this hearing.
You're
As well, you're
8 entitled to counsel at no expense to you.
9
Mr. Bowers, do you have any questions of the Court?
10
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
11
THE COURT: Mr. Bowers, you know, we've been doing
12 this for eight years now, and this is unacceptable to the Court.
13 The next time something like this happens, it's going to be a
14 much longer sentence.
15
16
Mr. Powers Beggs, anything further?
MR. POWERS BEGGS: No, no, Your Honor. I would just
17 maintain the objections entered previously.
Thank you.
18
THE COURT: Ms. Baunsgard, anything more?
19
MS. BAUNSGARD: No, thank you.
20
THE COURT: We'll be in recess.
21
(Court adjourned on May 10, 2023, at 9:36 a.m.)
22
23
24
25
Appendix C, 40 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.244 Page 26 of 27
26
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
WITNESS INDEX
1
PAGE
2
3
MELISSA HANSON
BY THE COURT
BY MR. POWERS BEGGS
BY THE COURT
3
6
11
DRAKE WHITE
BY MR. POWERS BEGGS
12
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Appendix C, 41 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 66
filed 05/31/23
PageID.245 Page 27 of 27
USA v. Bowers/Case No. 2:19-cr-00051-TOR-1
Revocation of Supervised Release Hearing
27
C E R T I F I C A T E
1
2
3
I, ALLISON R. ANDERSON, do hereby certify:
4
That I am an Official Court Reporter for the United States
5 District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in
6 Spokane, Washington;
7
That the foregoing proceedings were taken on the date and
8 place as shown on the first page hereto; and
9
That the foregoing proceedings are a full, true, and
10 accurate transcription of the requested proceedings, duly
11 transcribed by me or under my direction.
12
The conversion of certain names to initials in the
13 transcript was done to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal
14 Procedure 49.1.
15
I do further certify that I am not a relative of, employee
16 of, or counsel for any of said parties, or otherwise interested
17 in the event of said proceedings;
18
DATED this 31st day of May, 2023.
19
20
21
22
__________________________________
ALLISON R. ANDERSON, RMR, CRR
Washington CCR No. 2006
Official Court Reporter
Spokane, Washington
23
24
25
Appendix C, 42 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 41
filed 02/09/23
PageID.139 Page 1 of 2
Report Date: February 9, 2023
PROB 12C
(6/16)
United States District Court
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
for the
Feb 09, 2023
Eastern District of Washington
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision
Name of Offender: Jackson Daniel Bowers
Address of Offender:
Case Number: 0980 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
Spokane Valley, Washington 99216
Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, U.S. District Judge
Date of Original Sentence: June 26, 2019
Original Offense:
Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
Original Sentence:
Prison - 36 months;
TSR - 36 months
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release
Asst. U.S. Attorney:
Caitlin A. Baunsgard
Date Supervision Commenced: February 25, 2022
Defense Attorney:
Amy Rubin
Date Supervision Expires: February 24, 2025
PETITIONING THE COURT
To issue a warrant.
On February 25, 2022, a supervision intake was completed. Jackson Bowers acknowledged an understanding of
the conditions imposed by the Court and signed a copy of his judgment.
The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of supervision:
Violation Number
1
Nature of Noncompliance
Mandatory Condition #1: You must no commit another federal, state or local crime.
Supporting Evidence: It is alleged that Jackson Bowers violated the terms of his supervised
release by committing Fourth Degree Assault-Domestic Violence, in violation of RCW
9A.36.041, a gross misdemeanor, on or about February 8, 2023.
On February 8, 2023, deputies with the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office responded to
Jackson Bowers’ residence in response to a domestic violence report.
Deputies made contact with the victim, who resides at the residence with her three children.
The victim reported that she and Mr. Bowers have been having relationship issues and
arguing a lot. The victim reported that when Mr. Bowers gets angry, he gets physical. The
victim showed the deputies pictures of previous injuries and advised she had not attempted
to leave due to threats Mr. Bowers makes and being afraid for her safety.
Appendix D,
E, 43 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 41
filed 02/09/23
Appendix D,
E, 44 of 51
PageID.140 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 51
filed 04/17/23
PageID.166 Page 1 of 2
Report Date: April 17, 2023
PROB 12C
United States District Court
for the
Eastern District of Washington
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Apr 17, 2023
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender Under Supervision
Name of Offender: Jackson Daniel Bowers
Case Number: 0980 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
Address of Offender: Spokane County Jail
Name of Sentencing Judicial Officer: The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, U.S. District Judge
Date of Original Sentence: June 26, 2019
Original Offense:
Possession with Intent to Distribute Heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 842(a)(1), (b)(1)(C)
Original Sentence:
Prison - 36 months;
TSR - 36 months
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release
Asst. U.S. Attorney:
Caitlin A. Baunsgard
Date Supervision Commenced: February 25, 2022
Defense Attorney:
Carter Liam Powers Beggs
Date Supervision Expires: February 24, 2025
PETITIONING THE COURT
To incorporate the violation(s) contained in this petition in future proceedings with the violation(s) previously
reported to the Court on 2/9/2023.
The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of supervision:
Violation Number
2
Nature of Noncompliance
Mandatory Condition # 1: You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.
Supporting Evidence: It is alleged that Jackson Bowers violated the terms of his supervised
release by committing violation of a no contact order, on or about February 22, 2023.
On February 2, 2023, Jackson Bowers was served, while in the Spokane County Jail, with
a petition for protection order and temporary protection order and hearing notice to protect
the alleged victim in this matter. A hearing was held and the no contact order is currently
active until March 1, 2028.
According to Hall County Georgia Sheriff’s Office report for case number 2023-016508, a
deputy responded to a harassment report on February 22, 2023. The victim informed the
deputy that she received a call from Jackson Bowers from the Spokane County Jail at
approximately 12:14 p.m. on February 22, 2023. The victim advised that they were involved
in a domestic violence case and provided the deputy with copies of the temporary protection
order from the Spokane County Superior Court.
Appendix D,
E, 45 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 51
filed 04/17/23
PageID.167 Page 2 of 2
Prob12C
Re: Bowers, Jackson Daniel
April 17, 2023
Page 2
Additionally, the victim showed the deputy her call log, which revealed she received a call
from a number that is a common number that appears when inmates call from the Spokane
County Jail.
On April 12, 2023, a detective with the Spokane County Sheriffs Office contacted the
undersigned officer. They advised the allegation of the protection order has been
investigated and charges are forthcoming. Mr. Bowers’ jail calls were reviewed and his
specific jail pin number was used on February 22, 2023, at approximately 9:13 a.m. to call
the victim that has a protection order in place prohibiting Mr. Bowers from contacting them.
The U.S. Probation Office respectfully recommends the Court to incorporate the violation(s) contained in this petition
in future proceedings with the violation(s) previously reported to the Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on:
04/17/2023
s/Melissa Hanson
Melissa Hanson
U.S. Probation Officer
THE COURT ORDERS
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ;]
[ ;]
[ ]
[ ;]
No Action
The Issuance of a Warrant
The Issuance of a Summons
The incorporation of the violation(s) contained in this
petition with the other violations pending before the
Court.
Defendant to appear before the Judge assigned to the
case.
Defendant to appear before the Magistrate Judge.
Other 7KH5HYRFDWLRQRI6XSHUYLVHG5HOHDVH
VFKHGXOHGIRUUHPDLQVVHW
7K
7KRPDV25LFH
KRP
PDV 2 5LFH
8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW-XGJH
$SULO
Date
Appendix D,
E, 46 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
2$2'
ECF No. 57
filed 05/10/23
PageID.183 Page 1 of 5
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
5HY -XGJPHQWLQD&ULPLQDO&DVHIRU 5HYRFDWLRQV
6KHHW 5HYLVHGE\:$('
81,7('67$7(6',675,&7&2857 May 10, 2023
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
Eastern District of Washington
Judgment in a Criminal Case
81,7('67$7(62)$0(5,&$
Y
)RURevocation RI3UREDWLRQRU6XSHUYLVHG5HOHDVH
JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS
&DVH1R 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
8601R 20006-085
Carter Liam Powers Beggs
'HIHQGDQW¶V$WWRUQH\
THE DEFENDANT:
0&
; ZDVIRXQGLQYLRODWLRQRIFRQGLWLRQ V
G
7KHGHIHQGDQWLVDGMXGLFDWHGJXLOW\RIWKHVHYLRODWLRQV
Nature of Violation
Violation NR
1
DIWHUGHQLDORIJXLOW
Violation Ended
Committing a federal, state, or local crime.
02/08/2023
&RPPLWWLQJDIHGHUDOVWDWHRUORFDOFULPH
7KHGHIHQGDQWLVVHQWHQFHGDVSURYLGHGLQSDJHVWKURXJK
WKH6HQWHQFLQJ5HIRUP$FWRI
RIWKLVMXGJPHQW7KHVHQWHQFHLVLPSRVHGSXUVXDQWWR
DQGLV GLVFKDUJHGDVWRVXFKYLRODWLRQ V FRQGLWLRQ
G 7KHGHIHQGDQWKDVQRWYLRODWHGFRQGLWLRQ V
,WLVRUGHUHGWKDWWKHGHIHQGDQWPXVWQRWLI\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHVDWWRUQH\IRUWKLVGLVWULFWZLWKLQGD\VRIDQ\FKDQJHRIQDPH
UHVLGHQFHRUPDLOLQJDGGUHVVXQWLODOOILQHV UHVWLWXWLRQFRVWVDQGVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWVLPSRVHGE\WKLVMXGJPHQWDUH IXOO\SDLG,I
RUGHUHGWRSD\UHVWLWXWLRQWKHGHIHQGDQWPXVWQRWLI\WKHFRXUWDQG8QLWHG6WDWHVDWWRUQH\RIPDWHULDOFKDQJHV LQ HFRQRPLF
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
/DVW)RXU'LJLWVRI'HIHQGDQW¶V6RF6HF1R 3623
'HIHQGDQW¶V<HDURI%LUWK
'DWHRI,PSRVLWLRQRI-XGJPHQW
'DWH
H RI
I,PSRVLWLRQRI-XGJ
GJ
JPHQWW
1993
&LW\DQG6WDWHRI'HIHQGDQW¶V5HVLGHQFH
Spokane, Washington
6LJQDWXUHRI-XGJH
Thomas O. Rice
Judge, U.S. District Court
1DPHDQG7LWOHRI-XGJH
'DWH
Appendix E, 47 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
$2'
ECF No. 57
filed 05/10/23
PageID.184 Page 2 of 5
5HY -XGJPHQWLQD&ULPLQDO&DVHIRU5HYRFDWLRQV
6KHHW²,PSULVRQPHQW
-XGJPHQW²3DJH
RI
'()(1'$17 JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS
&$6(180%(5 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
IMPRISONMENT
7KHGHIHQGDQWLVKHUHE\FRPPLWWHGWRWKHFXVWRG\RIWKH)HGHUDO%XUHDXRI3ULVRQVWREHLPSULVRQHGIRUDWRWDOWHUP
RI
PRQWKV
G 7KHFRXUWPDNHVWKHIROORZLQJUHFRPPHQGDWLRQVWRWKH%XUHDXRI3ULVRQV
; 7KHGHIHQGDQWLVUHPDQGHGWRWKHFXVWRG\RIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV0DUVKDO
G
G 7KHGHIHQGDQWVKDOOVXUUHQGHUWRWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV0DUVKDOIRUWKLVGLVWULFW
G
DW
G DP
G
DVQRWLILHGE\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHV0DUVKDO
G SP
RQ
G 7KHGHIHQGDQWVKDOOVXUUHQGHUIRUVHUYLFHRIVHQWHQFHDWWKHLQVWLWXWLRQGHVLJQDWHGE\WKH%XUHDXRI3ULVRQV
G
EHIRUHSPRQ
G
DVQRWLILHGE\WKH8QLWHG6WDWHV0DUVKDO
G
DVQRWLILHGE\WKH3UREDWLRQRU3UHWULDO6HUYLFHV2IILFH
RETURN
,KDYHH[HFXWHGWKLVMXGJPHQWDVIROORZV
'HIHQGDQWGHOLYHUHGRQ
DW
WR
ZLWKDFHUWLILHGFRS\RIWKLVMXGJPHQW
81,7('67$7(60$56+$/
%\
'(387<81,7('67$7(60$56+$/
Appendix E, 48 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
ECF No. 57
filed 05/10/23
PageID.185 Page 3 of 5
$2' 5HY -XGJPHQWLQD&ULPLQDO&DVHIRU5HYRFDWLRQV
6KHHW²6XSHUYLVHG5HOHDVH
-XGJPHQW²3DJH
'()(1'$17 JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS
&$6(180%(5 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
RI
SUPERVISED RELEASE
8SRQUHOHDVHIURPLPSULVRQPHQW\RXZLOOEHRQVXSHUYLVHGUHOHDVHIRUDWHUPRI PRQWKV
MANDATORY CONDITIONS
<RXPXVWQRWFRPPLWDQRWKHUIHGHUDOVWDWHRUORFDOFULPH
<RXPXVWQRWXQODZIXOO\SRVVHVVDFRQWUROOHGVXEVWDQFHLQFOXGLQJPDULMXDQDZKLFKUHPDLQVLOOHJDOXQGHUIHGHUDOODZ
<RXPXVWUHIUDLQIURPDQ\XQODZIXOXVHRIDFRQWUROOHGVXEVWDQFH<RXPXVWVXEPLWWRRQHGUXJWHVWZLWKLQGD\VRIUHOHDVHIURP
LPSULVRQPHQWDQGDWOHDVWWZRSHULRGLFGUXJWHVWVWKHUHDIWHUDVGHWHUPLQHGE\WKHFRXUW
G 7KHDERYHGUXJWHVWLQJFRQGLWLRQLVVXVSHQGHGEDVHGRQWKHFRXUW VGHWHUPLQDWLRQWKDW\RX
SRVHDORZULVNRIIXWXUHVXEVWDQFHDEXVH(check if applicable)
G<RXPXVWFRRSHUDWHLQWKHFROOHFWLRQRI'1$DVGLUHFWHGE\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHU(check if applicable)
G<RXPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVRIWKH6H[2IIHQGHU5HJLVWUDWLRQDQG1RWLILFDWLRQ$FW 86& et seq DV
GLUHFWHGE\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUWKH%XUHDXRI3ULVRQVRUDQ\VWDWHVH[RIIHQGHUUHJLVWUDWLRQDJHQF\LQZKLFK\RXUHVLGHZRUN
DUHDVWXGHQWRUZHUHFRQYLFWHGRIDTXDOLI\LQJRIIHQVH(check if applicable)
G <RXPXVWSDUWLFLSDWHLQDQDSSURYHGSURJUDPIRUGRPHVWLFYLROHQFH(check if applicable)
<RXPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKHVWDQGDUGFRQGLWLRQVWKDWKDYHEHHQDGRSWHGE\WKLVFRXUWDVZHOODVZLWKDQ\RWKHUFRQGLWLRQVRQWKHDWWDFKHG
SDJH
Appendix E, 49 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
$2' 5HY
ECF No. 57
filed 05/10/23
PageID.186 Page 4 of 5
-XGJPHQWLQD&ULPLQDO&DVHIRU5HYRFDWLRQV
6KHHW$²6XSHUYLVHG5HOHDVH
-XGJPHQW²3DJH
'()(1'$17 JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS
&$6(180%(5 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
RI
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
$VSDUWRI\RXUVXSHUYLVHGUHOHDVH\RXPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKHIROORZLQJVWDQGDUGFRQGLWLRQVRIVXSHUYLVLRQ7KHVHFRQGLWLRQVDUHLPSRVHG
EHFDXVHWKH\HVWDEOLVKWKHEDVLFH[SHFWDWLRQVIRU\RXUEHKDYLRUZKLOHRQVXSHUYLVLRQDQGLGHQWLI\WKHPLQLPXPWRROVQHHGHGE\SUREDWLRQ
RIILFHUVWRNHHSLQIRUPHGUHSRUWWRWKHFRXUWDERXWDQGEULQJDERXWLPSURYHPHQWVLQ\RXUFRQGXFWDQGFRQGLWLRQ
<RXPXVWUHSRUWWRWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHLQWKHIHGHUDOMXGLFLDOGLVWULFWZKHUH\RXDUHDXWKRUL]HGWRUHVLGHZLWKLQKRXUVRI\RXU
UHOHDVHIURPLPSULVRQPHQWXQOHVVWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHULQVWUXFWV\RXWRUHSRUWWRDGLIIHUHQWSUREDWLRQRIILFHRUZLWKLQDGLIIHUHQWWLPH
IUDPH
$IWHULQLWLDOO\UHSRUWLQJWRWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFH\RXZLOOUHFHLYHLQVWUXFWLRQVIURPWKHFRXUWRUWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDERXWKRZDQG
ZKHQ\RXPXVWUHSRUWWRWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDQG\RXPXVWUHSRUWWRWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDVLQVWUXFWHG
<RXPXVWQRWNQRZLQJO\OHDYHWKHIHGHUDOMXGLFLDOGLVWULFWZKHUH\RXDUHDXWKRUL]HGWRUHVLGHZLWKRXWILUVWJHWWLQJSHUPLVVLRQIURPWKH
FRXUWRUWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHU
<RXPXVWEHWUXWKIXOZKHQUHVSRQGLQJWRWKHTXHVWLRQVDVNHGE\\RXUSUREDWLRQRIILFHU
<RXPXVWOLYHDWDSODFHDSSURYHGE\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHU,I\RXSODQWRFKDQJHZKHUH\RXOLYHRUDQ\WKLQJDERXW\RXUOLYLQJ
DUUDQJHPHQWV VXFKDVWKHSHRSOH\RXOLYHZLWK \RXPXVWQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDWOHDVWGD\VEHIRUHWKHFKDQJH,IQRWLI\LQJ
WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHULQDGYDQFHLVQRWSRVVLEOHGXHWRXQDQWLFLSDWHGFLUFXPVWDQFHV\RXPXVWQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUZLWKLQ
KRXUVRIEHFRPLQJDZDUHRIDFKDQJHRUH[SHFWHGFKDQJH
<RXPXVWDOORZWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUWRYLVLW\RXDWDQ\WLPHDW\RXUKRPHRUHOVHZKHUHDQG\RXPXVWSHUPLWWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUWR
WDNHDQ\LWHPVSURKLELWHGE\WKHFRQGLWLRQVRI\RXUVXSHUYLVLRQWKDWKHRUVKHREVHUYHVLQSODLQYLHZ
<RXPXVWZRUNIXOOWLPH DWOHDVWKRXUVSHUZHHN DWDODZIXOW\SHRIHPSOR\PHQWXQOHVVWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUH[FXVHV\RXIURP
GRLQJVR,I\RXGRQRWKDYHIXOOWLPHHPSOR\PHQW\RXPXVWWU\WRILQGIXOOWLPHHPSOR\PHQWXQOHVVWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUH[FXVHV
\RXIURPGRLQJVR,I\RXSODQWRFKDQJHZKHUH\RXZRUNRUDQ\WKLQJDERXW\RXUZRUN VXFKDV\RXUSRVLWLRQRU\RXUMRE
UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV \RXPXVWQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDWOHDVWGD\VEHIRUHWKHFKDQJH,IQRWLI\LQJWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUDWOHDVW
GD\VLQDGYDQFHLVQRWSRVVLEOHGXHWRXQDQWLFLSDWHGFLUFXPVWDQFHV\RXPXVWQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUZLWKLQKRXUVRI
EHFRPLQJDZDUHRIDFKDQJHRUH[SHFWHGFKDQJH
<RXPXVWQRWFRPPXQLFDWHRULQWHUDFWZLWKVRPHRQH\RXNQRZLVHQJDJHGLQFULPLQDODFWLYLW\,I\RXNQRZVRPHRQHKDVEHHQ
FRQYLFWHGRIDIHORQ\\RXPXVWQRWNQRZLQJO\FRPPXQLFDWHRULQWHUDFWZLWKWKDWSHUVRQZLWKRXWILUVWJHWWLQJWKHSHUPLVVLRQRIWKH
SUREDWLRQRIILFHU
,I\RXDUHDUUHVWHGRUTXHVWLRQHGE\DODZHQIRUFHPHQWRIILFHU\RXPXVWQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUZLWKLQKRXUV
<RXPXVWQRWRZQSRVVHVVRUKDYHDFFHVVWRDILUHDUPDPPXQLWLRQGHVWUXFWLYHGHYLFHRUGDQJHURXVZHDSRQ LHDQ\WKLQJWKDWZDV
GHVLJQHGRUZDVPRGLILHGIRUWKHVSHFLILFSXUSRVHRIFDXVLQJERGLO\LQMXU\RUGHDWKWRDQRWKHUSHUVRQVXFKDVQXQFKDNXVRUWDVHUV
<RXPXVWQRWDFWRUPDNHDQ\DJUHHPHQWZLWKDODZHQIRUFHPHQWDJHQF\WRDFWDVDFRQILGHQWLDOKXPDQVRXUFHRULQIRUPDQWZLWKRXW
ILUVWJHWWLQJWKHSHUPLVVLRQRIWKHFRXUW
,IWKLVMXGJPHQWLPSRVHVUHVWLWXWLRQDILQHRUVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWLWLVDFRQGLWLRQRIVXSHUYLVHGUHOHDVHWKDW\RXSD\LQDFFRUGDQFH
ZLWKWKH6FKHGXOHRI3D\PHQWVVKHHWRIWKLVMXGJPHQW<RXVKDOOQRWLI\WKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHURIDQ\PDWHULDOFKDQJHLQ\RXU
HFRQRPLFFLUFXPVWDQFHVWKDWPLJKWDIIHFW\RXUDELOLW\WRSD\DQ\XQSDLGDPRXQWRIUHVWLWXWLRQILQHRUVSHFLDODVVHVVPHQWV
<RXPXVWIROORZWKHLQVWUXFWLRQVRIWKHSUREDWLRQRIILFHUUHODWHGWRWKHFRQGLWLRQVRIVXSHUYLVLRQ
U.S. Probation Office Use Only
$86SUREDWLRQRIILFHUKDVLQVWUXFWHGPHRQWKHVWDQGDUGFRQGLWLRQVPDQGDWRU\FRQGLWLRQVDQGVSHFLDOFRQGLWLRQV LIDSSOLFDEOH
VSHFLILHGE\WKHFRXUWDQGKDVSURYLGHGPHZLWKDZULWWHQFRS\RIWKLVMXGJPHQWFRQWDLQLQJWKHVHFRQGLWLRQV)RUIXUWKHULQIRUPDWLRQ
UHJDUGLQJWKHVHFRQGLWLRQVVHHOverview of Probation and SupervisedRelease ConditionsDYDLODEOHDW ZZZXVFRXUWVJRY
'HIHQGDQW V6LJQDWXUH
'DWH
Appendix E, 50 of 51
Case 2:19-cr-00051-TOR
$2'
ECF No. 57
filed 05/10/23
PageID.187 Page 5 of 5
5HY -XGJPHQWLQD&ULPLQDO&DVHIRU5HYRFDWLRQV
6KHHW'²6XSHUYLVHG5HOHDVH
-XGJPHQW²3DJH
JACKSON DANIEL BOWERS
'()(1'$17
&$6(180%(5 2:19CR00051-TOR-1
RI
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
You must reside in a residential reentry center (RRC) for a period up to 180 days at the direction of the supervising
officer. Your participation in the programs offered by the RRC is limited to employment, education, treatment, and religious
services at the direction of the supervising officer. The defendant shall abide by the rules and requirements of the facility.
You must submit your person, residence, office, vehicle and belongings to a search, conducted by a probation officer,at
a sensible time and manner, based upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of violation of a condition of
supervision. Failure to submit to search LV grounds for revocation. You must warn persons with whom you share a
residence that the premises may be subject to search.
You must undergo substance abuse evaluationV and, if indicated by a licensed/certified treatment provider, enter into
and successfully complete approved substance abuse treatment programV, which could include inpatient treatment and
aftercare upon further order of the court. You must contribute to the cost of treatment according to your ability to pay. You
must allow full reciprocal disclosure between the supervising officer and treatment provider.
You must abstain from the use of illegal controlled substances, and must submit to urinalysis and sweat patch testing, as
directed by the supervising officer, but no more than 6 tests per month, in order to confirm continued abstinence from these
substances.
You must not enter into or remain in any establishment where alcohol is the primary item of sale. You must abstain from
DOOalcohol and must submit to urinalysis and Breathalyzer testing as directed by the supervising officer, but no more than 6
tests per month, in order to confirm continued abstinence from this substance.
Appendix E, 51 of 51
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.