USA v. Bigham

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	:
: 	Case No. 2:25-mj-00310
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
v. 	:
: 	MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOLSON
CARSON A. BIGHAM, 	:
:
Defendant. 	:
OPINION & ORDER
This matter comes before this Court on Defendant Carson A. Bigham’s Motion for the
Revocation of Detention (ECF No. 23) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). 	The Magistrate Judge
previously ordered Defendant detained pending trial, finding by clear and convincing evidence
that there was no condition or combination of conditions of release that would reasonably assure
the safety of any other person and the community. (ECF No. 17 at 3). The Government opposed
Defendant’s Motion. (ECF No. 27). For the reasons stated at the detention hearing on October
31, 2025 and set forth herein, Defendant’s Motion is DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mr. Bigham is a firefighter in the Columbus area who is charged with possession of child
pornography. (ECF No. 1 at 1). The Government alleges that in August 2024, Bigham, using an
alias, began communicating with a one Mr. Richard Tyler Campbell over Snapchat, where they
discussed having sex with minors. (ECF No. 27 at 3). Campbell sent Bigham a video of an adult
man engaging in sex acts prepubescent minor who appeared to be 6 or 7 years old. 	Bigham
expressed 	gratitude 	and 	requested 	specific 	child 	pornography 	from 	Campbell, 	including
pornography that would depict the minor child “bent over” in the way that Bigham “[would] want
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
her.” (Id. at 4). The two met at a restaurant for lunch, where they watched child pornography on
Campbell’s phone—including videos of a minor victim being sexually assaulted. Campbell told
Bigham that this video showing sexual assault of a minor depicted Campbell. (Id. at 5).
Law enforcement executed a search warrant of Campbell’s residence in February 2025,
and after reviewing Campbell’s devices, discovered the correspondence with Bigham. Campbell
was arrested in March 2025, and Bigham was arrested and ordered temporarily detained on May
22, 2025. (Id. at 2–3; ECF No. 11 at 1). The Magistrate Judge held a detention hearing on May
27 where the Government proffered Bigham’s full confession to law enforcement; Bigham was
ordered detained pending trial. 	(ECF No. 27 at 6–7). 	Law enforcement completed its forensic
review of Bigham’s cellular phone following his detention, locating his correspondence with
Campbell, along with “one other file of child pornography.” (Id. at 7). Bigham moved to revoke
his detention pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) on September 19, 2025, arguing that no substantial
“trove” of child pornography had materialized. (ECF No. 23 at 1–2). The Government opposed
revocation of his pre-trial detention, and on October 31, this Court heard argument on the issue.
II. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
“If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge . . . the person may file . . . a motion
for revocation or amendment of the order.” 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). “The motion shall be determined
promptly.” Id. A district court reviews a magistrate judge’s detention order de novo, making an
independent determination of the proper pretrial detention or conditions for release. United States
v. Wooden, 2025 WL 407373, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 5, 2025) (Marbley, J.). The district court must
evaluate four factors laid out in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), including the nature and circumstances of
the offense, the weight of the evidence, the defendant’s history and characteristics, and the nature
and seriousness of the danger to the community.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 2 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
The purpose of the § 3142(g) inquiry is to determine whether pretrial detention is
necessary, and to ensure that if the defendant is released, the defendant will appear before the court
for trial, with the community safe in the interim. The court does not evaluate the defendant’s guilt
or innocence at this stage. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j). The Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply
to detention matters, and a court may consider both hearsay and evidence provided by proffer. 18
U.S.C. § 3142(f); United States v. Stone, 608 F.3d 939, 948–49 (6th Cir. 2010).
III. 	LAW & ANALYSIS
This Court first considers whether the Defendant has successfully rebutted the presumption
favoring detention that applies for offenses involving minor victims, before turning to the
§ 3142(g) factors and considering whether the Government has met its burden of persuasion.
A. Presumption of Detention
For certain offenses, such as “offense[s] involving a minor victim” including those under
18 U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A, if the judicial officer finds probable cause, “it shall be presumed
that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person
and the safety of the community.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(E). 	To rebut this presumption, the
defendant must produce “[some] evidence [showing] that he does not pose a danger to the
community or a risk of flight.” Stone, 608 F.3d at 945 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted). The Government retains the burden of persuasion. Id.
Bigham is charged with possessing and receiving child pornography in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 2252 and 2252A, and thus, the presumption in favor of detention applies. Bigham must
come forward with evidence that he is not a danger to the community and does not pose a risk of
flight to rebut this presumption. See United States v. Brown, 2008 WL 2098070, at *2 (S.D. Ohio
May 16, 2008).
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 3 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

4
Bigham’s only evidentiary argument is that after the Magistrate Judge’s detention order,
the forensic review of his electronic devices revealed only “a single additional video” of child
sexual abuse material “in allocated space on one of the devices.” 	(ECF No. 23 at 2). 	Thus,
according to Bigham, no trove of child pornography has materialized. As the Government points
out, this is not evidence showing that Bigham is not a danger to the community or that he does not
pose a risk of flight. (ECF No. 27 at 8). This video is actually further evidence (albeit only one
additional item of evidence) showing the danger that Bigham poses to the community because it
is a video of child sexual abuse that was in Bigham’s possession.
Separately, Bigham argued that he was subject to varying degrees of manipulation and
extortion by Campbell and felt his safety was threatened by Campbell. 	But this argument that
Bigham was manipulated or coerced is conclusory and fails to demonstrate that Bigham is not a
danger or a flight risk. 	And any argument regarding Bigham’s background or lack of criminal
history similarly fails because it is not evidence demonstrating how he would not be a danger. Cf.
United States v. Tripplett, 2020 WL 6702118, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 13, 2020).
An unrebutted presumption requires detention, and the presumption here is unrebutted
because Bigham has not presented “some evidence” addressing danger or risk of flight. United
States v. Hamilton, 2023 WL 8461636, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2023) (requiring detention where
the defendant did not offer evidence rebutting the presumption as to danger). Moreover, for the
following reasons, this Court finds that even if Bigham had shown some evidence and met his
burden to rebut the presumption of pretrial detention, the § 3142(g) factors still favor keeping him
detained pending trial.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 4 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

5
B. Pre-Trial Detention Review
To determine whether detention is appropriate, this Court is obligated to consider whether
there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure both Bigham’s “appearance” and “the
safety of any other person and the community.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 	In doing so, the Court
considers four factors: (1) “the nature and circumstances of the offense;” (2) “the weight of the
evidence against the person;” (3) “the history and characteristics of the person;” and (4) “the nature
and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person’s
release.” Id. The Government has the burden of showing that no conditions of release can ensure
that the defendant will appear and assure the safety of the community. Wooden, 2025 WL 407373,
at *2. 	Risk of flight is determined by the preponderance of the evidence, while dangerousness
must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. United States v. Hinton, 113 F. App’x 76,
77 (6th Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 	Even when the presumption in favor of detention is
rebutted, it “remains a factor to be considered.” Stone, 608 F.3d at 945 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted).
The Government raises both flight and safety concerns regarding Bigham’s pretrial release.
For the following reasons, the Court finds that the § 3142(g) factors favor keeping Bigham detained
pending trial due to the nature and seriousness of the danger he would pose if released. This Court
finds that the Government has met its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that
Bigham is a danger to others and the community.
1. 	Safety of Others and the Community
First, the nature and circumstances of Bigham’s offense are serious. 	This Court is
expressly directed by statute to consider whether the offense “is a crime of violence, . . . or involves
a minor victim.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(1). 	Bigham is charged with possession of child
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 5 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

6
pornography, which is a crime of violence that implicates minor victims and creates a market for
child exploitation. United States v. Hammond, 2025 WL 3018775, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 29, 2025)
(Marbley, J.). 	The Government alleges that Bigham made escalating requests for child
pornography, met with Campbell to watch child pornography in public, and received video that
purported to show Campbell abusing a minor. (ECF No. 27 at 4–5). This factor militates in favor
of detention.
Second, in considering the weight of evidence, this Court considers evidence of Bigham’s
dangerousness, not guilt. 	Stone, 608 F.3d at 948. 	Here, the weight of evidence of Bigham’s
dangerousness is apparent. 	Carson Bigham is a firefighter entrusted with public safety. 	Yet,
according to the Government, Bigham requested child pornography from Campbell. Bigham did
not notify authorities when he was under the impression that Campbell was abusing a minor;
instead, he plotted with Campbell to have sexual relations with a minor he believed to be
Campbell’s niece. (ECF No. 27 at 4–5). Bigham was excited and sexually stimulated by minors
being abused, failed to report this abuse, and allegedly stated that his sexual interest in 12-to-15-
year-old minors presented challenges because they could “remember faces, tattle, whatever.” (Id.
at 3–4). He even left his underwear and a used condom for Campbell outside the Columbus fire
station he worked at as a “show of good faith.” (Id. at 12–13). Bigham used his own fire station
as a personal playground for his fetishes and took brazen, public steps to view and obtain more
child pornography. This demonstrates the danger that he would pose to minors and the public if
released. This factor also weighs in favor of detention.
Third, Bigham’s history and characteristics are, at best, neutral. 	True, he has no prior
criminal record, and the Government has not discovered evidence of a “trove” of child
pornography in his possession. 	(ECF Nos. 14 at 3; 23 at 1–2). 	Bigham also has family and
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 6 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

7
community ties and no history of substance abuse. (See ECF No. 14 at 1–3). Yet, as the Magistrate
Judge correctly observed, Bigham’s actions demonstrate his duplicity to the community while he
served in a position of public trust as a firefighter. (ECF No. 28 at 23). At any rate, this factor
does not overcome the others. Cf. United States v. King, 2022 WL 3645996, at *4 (E.D. Tenn.
Aug. 24, 2022) (finding that a firefighter’s “ability to conceal his activity from his family . . .
outweigh[ed] [the] positive aspects of his history and characteristics”).
Fourth, the danger posed by Bigham’s release would be serious, and weighs strongly in
favor of detention. As an initial matter, Bigham “has actively encouraged a market and created an
economic incentive for child exploitation and abuse.” Hammond, 2025 WL 3018775, at *2 (citing
United States v. Brune, 767 F.3d 1009, 1021 n.9 (10th Cir. 2014)). 	Even in cases without any
physical contact to “an actual child,” courts find that child exploitation “causes real, lasting harm
to real victims and may warrant detention.” United States v. Kiper, 2022 WL 943958, at *5 (E.D.
Ky. Mar. 29, 2022). In this case, Bigham not only requested specific child pornography but also
believed that he was taking steps toward engaging in sexual conduct with a minor. 	Bigham’s
actions in this regard were uninhibited. He met with Campbell, watched pornography in public,
and left his underwear and a used condom at his fire station. He recognized that his sexual interest
in minors aged 12-15 presented a risk that they would “tattle,” and expressed effusive gratitude
when Campbell sent him a video of a man engaging in sex acts a prepubescent minor who appeared
to be 6 or 7 years old. 	(ECF No. 27 at 3–4). 	Considering his uninhibited behavior, Bigham’s
release would raise an “extreme danger” to the community. United States v. Darling, 2024 WL
1363977, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2024). This factor strongly weighs in favor of detention.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 7 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

8
In sum, even if Bigham had rebutted the presumption in favor of detention, three of the
four § 3142(g) factors weigh strongly in favor of detention for dangerousness.1 However, the mere
fact that § 3142(g) factors weigh in favor of detention does not per se lead to the conclusion that
any danger Bigham poses cannot be alleviated, and safety assured, by a combination of conditions.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). 	Therefore, the Court considers what conditions, if any, could secure
Bigham’s release.
2. 	Conditions Securing Release
Assuming that Bigham was released and could reside either at his home residence or with
his extended family, as suggested by the Pretrial Services Report (see ECF No. 14), there is no
guarantee that all conditions, especially the restrictions on his ability to obtain pornography, could
be enforced. Bigham was able to commit the alleged crimes from the privacy of his home, armed
with internet access, and the notion of returning him to a similar environment of privacy is
concerning. See United States v. Pece, 2020 WL 6263640, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 23, 2020); United
States v. Sammons, 2020 WL 613930, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 10, 2020).
Moreover, Bigham would pose a real risk to minors in his own extended family. Bigham
maintains contact with his parents and extended family, and Bigham’s mother babysits for an
infant granddaughter. 	This is why Bigham could not reside with his parents if he were to be
released. Instead, Pretrial Services suggested Bigham could reside either at his home or with his
grandparents. Yet these residences appear to be close to Bigham’s parents’ home. (ECF No. 14
at 1–2). Given that Bigham maintains contact with his family, has expressed a sexual interest in
minors, and has suggested that younger pre-pubescent minors might be preferable victims, the
Court cannot countenance Bigham’s release where he would be in proximity to a potential victim.
1 The Court need not take up the Government’s alternative argument regarding flight risk.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 8 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>

9
In light of the presumption favoring detention and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(g), this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that Bigham is a continuing danger
to the community and no conditions short of detention are likely to protect public safety. 	Cf.
United States v. Creed-Boehm, 2025 WL 1145021, at *4–5 (6th Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For these reasons, and as discussed at the October 31 hearing, Defendant Carson Bigham’s
Motion is DENIED. 	Defendant is ORDERED to remain in the custody of the United States
Marshal pending trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ALGENON L. MARBLEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: November 18, 2025
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 39 Filed: 11/18/25 Page: 9 of 9 PAGEID #: <pageID>