USA v. Depasque

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Albania Concepcion and Evan Gilead, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE,
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415, for Plaintiff.
Patrick G. Leach, LEACH LAW OFFICE, 8961 Aztec Drive, Eden Prairie, MN
55437, for Defendant.
Defendant David James Depasque is charged with two counts of attempted
coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). (Indictment, Aug.
20, 2025, Docket No. 11.) Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins previously determined that
“the Government established through clear and convincing evidence that . . . no condition
or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community if Mr.
Depasque is afforded release.” (Order of Detention at 1–2, July 28, 2025, Docket No. 10.)
Depasque now moves the Court for reconsideration of his release conditions, seeking
temporary release to participate in in-patient treatment for his drug addiction at a
Veteran Affairs treatment program. (Docket Nos. 35, 43.) Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
(See Docket No. 39.) The Court has conferred with the Probation Office.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID JAMES DEPASQUE,
Defendant.
Criminal No. 25-313 (JRT/DJF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING MOTIONS FOR RELEASE FROM
CUSTODY
CASE 0:25-cr-00313-JRT-DJF Doc. 46 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 3

-2-
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f), a detention hearing
may be reopened . . . if the judicial officer finds that
information exists that was not known to the movant at the
time of the hearing and that has a material bearing on the
issue 	whether 	there 	are 	conditions 	of 	release 	that 	will
reasonably assure the appearance of such person as required
and the safety of any other person and the community.
If the Court decides to reopen the detention hearing, the Court must then consider the
ultimate question of whether, based on the additional information and the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g), “there are conditions of release that will reasonably assure . . .
the safety of any other person and the community.”
The Court is not convinced that Depasque’s eligibility for in-patient treatment for
drug addiction is additional information, as required by § 3142(f). But even assuming that
Depasque’s 	eligibility 	for 	in-patient 	treatment 	for 	drug 	addiction 	is 	additional
“information . . . not known to the movant at the time of the hearing” within the scope
of § 3142(f), the Court concludes that the proposed conditions of release do not
reasonably assure the safety of the community. A rebuttable presumption of detention
applies in this case given the offenses with which Depasque is charged. 	See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(e)(3)(E). As a result, Depasque “bears a limited burden of production . . . to rebut
that presumption by coming forward with evidence he does not pose a danger to the
community or a risk of flight.” 	United States v. Abad, 350 F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 2003)
(citation omitted). Depasque has not met that burden. The Court will, therefore, deny
Depasque’s motions for release from custody.
CASE 0:25-cr-00313-JRT-DJF Doc. 46 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 3

-3-
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Release Conditions (Docket
No. [35]) and Second Motion to Reconsider Release Conditions (Docket No. [43]) are
DENIED.
DATED: April 27, 2026
at Minneapolis, Minnesota. 	JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge
CASE 0:25-cr-00313-JRT-DJF Doc. 46 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 3