Motion to Revoke Detention

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID 67
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
v. § 3:18-cr-005-D
§
CHRISTOPHER MAURICE DANIELS §
MOTION APPEALING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S DETENTION ORDER
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE SIDNEY FITZWATER:
NOW COMES defendant CHRISTOPHER MAURICE DANIELS, through undersigned
counsel, and moves the Court to revoke the detention order (Doc. 9) and set condition of pretrial
release. In support, he respectfully submits the following:
On December 12, 2017, the government named Mr. Daniels in a complaint alleging
violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9)–possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (previously
convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence). At his initial appearance on December
12, 2017, Mr. Daniels contested the government’s detention motion. The Honorable Magistrate
Judge Paul Stickney presided over a detention hearing on December 15, 2017 and ordered Mr.
Daniels detained pending trial (Doc. 8). Mr. Daniels has remained in federal custody since his
arrest. On January 9, 2018, a federal grand jury returned the instant indictment, also for an
alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9).
Contemporaneously with this pleading, the defense filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment. As set forth in the motion to dismiss, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(9) does not reach Mr.
Daniels’ alleged conduct. Should the Court grant the defense’s motion to dismiss, Mr. Daniels
will have been wrongfully incarcerated. This Court should order Mr. Daniels release pending the
resolution of his motion.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID 68
The deprivation of a defendant’s liberty prior to the determination of guilt is a serious
matter. Thus, “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial...is the carefully
limited exception.” U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 755 (1987). Where, as here, a Magistrate
Judge has found such an exception and detained a defendant pretrial, that defendant may appeal
the order to the District Court Judge. 18 U.S.C. §3145(b)(“a person...ordered detained by a
magistrate...may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for
revocation or amendment of the order.”)
The statutory basis for determining whether a defendant should have his liberty taken
from him before a jury or judge has determined his guilt is found in 18 U.S.C. §3142. “An
individual shall be released pending trial unless a judicial officer finds that ‘no condition or
combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required and
the safety of any other person and the community.” U.S. v. Foox, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11180,
*9 (N.D. Tex., Jan. 27, 2017), 3:16-CR-516-D (quoting 18 U.S.C. §3142(e)(1). “In reviewing a
magistrate judge’s order, the district courts act de novo and makes an independent determination
of whether release is proper.” U.S. v. Arias, 119 F.3d 2, 3 (5 th Cir. 1997)(citing 18 U.S.C. §
3145(a)(1)); U.S. v. Rueben, 974 F.2d 580, 585 (5 th Cir. 1992).
This is not a rebuttable presumption case. Hence, neither the burden of production nor
persuasion ever shifted to the defense. Yet, at the conclusion of the detention hearing, the Court
did not explain why it detained Mr. Daniels except to say that “based on the evidence as
2

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID 69
presented here today...I do find that he’s a danger to the safety of the community.” 1 Similarly,
the written detention order (Doc. 9) does not explain why Mr. Daniels’ release would post an
unreasonable risk to the community other than “he unlawfully possessed firearms and attempted
to ship a firearm in his luggage.” 2 Yet a conclusory assertion of a risk to community safety does
not justify this deprivation of Mr. Daniel’s freedom. U.S. v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711,
729 (1990)(“the magnitude of the injury inflicted by pretrial detention requires adherence to
strict procedural safeguards that cannot be sacrificed in the name of community safety.”).
“A determination of a lack of assurance of community safety must be based on clear and
convincing evidence.” U.S. v. Perez, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23481, *9 (N.D. Tex., Oct. 13,
2005), 3:05-cr-186-L(08). That probable cause exists to conclude a prohibited person possessed
one or two firearms is not novel–rather it is a necessary aspect of every single §922(g) case that
has ever passed the scrutiny of a grand jury. And such probable cause is a poor substitute for
clear and convincing evidence of a danger to the community. Hence, it is difficult to conceive
how possession of otherwise-legal firearms could alone suffice to meet the government’s burden
1
The Court specifically ruled that the government had not produced evidence “that he’s [Mr.
Daniels is] a risk of flight.” The transcript of the detention hearing is enclosed as Exhibit A.
2 The Court did not mention Mr. Daniels’ criminal history in either the oral or written detention
order. Plainly though, his record is far less serious than that of the large majority of 922(g)
defendants who have secured pretrial bond because the very large majority of said defendants are
felons. And, in Mr. Daniels’ case, the underlying (alleged) predicate offense is nearly eleven
years old, which, were he facing sentencing, would be too old to count under the sentencing
guidelines. The entirety of the pretrial report lists seven arrests between 2001 and 2009, of
which only three resulted in convictions (all misdemeanors), including the predicate at issue.
3

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID 70
in this case. Were it otherwise, then, at the very minimum, Congress would have added §922(g)
to the list of rebuttable presumption offenses. 3
Nor is the fact that Mr. Daniels “attempted to ship a firearm in his luggage” particularly
germane to his danger to the community. Cursory review of the facts at issue amply
demonstrates that, but for an alleged misdemeanor conviction that he sustained nearly eleven
years ago, the conduct at issue would be unarguably legal and amounts to nothing more than Mr.
Daniels’ open compliance with Airline regulations:
On December 5, 2017, I [the affiant] received correspondence from a
representative of the Spirit Airlines Luggage Resolution Department, who
provided additional information related to the firearm checked by Daniels.
The correspondence contained a screenshot showing traveler claim check
#0487720939 was related to a “Type 61" classification, which Spirit
categorized as a weapon. The “Content description” was written as a
“Taurus Poly Protector 38 Special +P,” which I understand is a .38 caliber
handgun. 4
Hence, per the government’s evidence, Mr. Daniels did not attempt to take a firearm into the
cabin of the airplane. Nor did he attempt to secrete the firearm, nor otherwise conceal the fact
that he intended to travel with it. Yet the statute governing release conditions is clear: if
recognizance or an unsecured bond are insufficient, then release should be subject to the “least
restrictive” conditions the judicial officer determines will “reasonably assure” the defendant’s
appearance and reasonably assure “the safety of any other person and the community.” 18
3
See 18 U.S.C. §3142(e)(3).
4 Criminal Complaint, paragraph 12 (Doc. 1)
4

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID 71
U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). Any concern over this basis for Mr. Daniels’ detention could be
resolved by a number of standard release conditions (not to possess firearms or other weapons,
not to travel outside of the city absent prior approval, etc.)
The defense now turns to the proverbial elephant in the room–whether and to what extent
Mr. Daniels’ pretrial detention is motivated by his speech, which is arguably repugnant, yet
unarguably protected by the Constitution. Certainly, the government contended that Mr.
Daniels’ speech was a basis to detain him; indeed, the government offered no less than six of Mr.
Daniels’ posts or re-posts on Facebook as exhibits 5 at the detention hearing. It highlighted the
posts with corresponding testimony. 6
Notably, the government’s witness for the detention hearing (and case agent) testified on
cross-examination that: 1) the government had not recovered any specific evidence of statements
by Mr. Daniels, via social media or otherwise, that he would harm a law enforcement officer, and
2) the government had not recovered any evidence of Mr. Daniels specifically directing another
individual to cause harm to a law enforcement officer. 7 Because Mr. Daniels’ social media posts
are not threats, they are well within his protected speech rights. See United States v. Carmichael,
326 F.Supp. 2d 1267, 1301 (M.D. Ala.), supplemented, 326 F.Supp. 2d 1303 (M.D. Ala.
2004)(holding a defendant’s website with a mock “wanted” poster seeking information about
5
Enclosed as Exhibit B.
6
Exhibit A, pgs 4-9.
7 Exhibit A, pgs 15-16.
5

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID 72
individuals in his case was “not a serious threat sufficient to warrant a prior restraint on...speech
or an imposition on his constitutional right to investigate his case”);
Watts v. U.S., 394 U.S.
705, 706 (1969) (holding that Vietnam war protestor engaged in protected speech when saying
“...I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical
this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to
get in my sights is L.B.J.”); United States v. O’Dwyer, 443 Fed. Appx 18, 19 (5 th Cir. 2011)
(upholding the district court’s dismissal of an indictment for making threats via interstate
communication when defendant sent the following email to a federal employee of the
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana: “maybe my creditors would benefit from
my suicide, but suppose I become ‘homicidal’? Given the recent ‘security breach’ at 500
Poydras Street, a number of scoundrels might be at risk if I DO become homicidal.”) “Speech is
an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the
people.” Citizen United v. Fed. Electin Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010). Mr. Daniels’
speech, which falls short of that which would be illegal, ought not be considered as a basis,
partial or otherwise, to deprive him of freedom pre-trial. Such consideration violates the First
Amendment.
The defense respectfully moves the Court to revoke the detention order in favor of
releasing Mr. Daniels on pretrial conditions.
6

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22 Filed 01/24/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID 73
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John M. Nicholson
JOHN M. NICHOLSON
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Northern District of Texas
Texas Bar No. 24013240
525 Griffin Street, Suite 629
Dallas, Texas 75202
Phone 214-767-2746
john_nicholson@fd.org
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I certify I conferred with AUSA Jennifer Tourje, and confirmed that the government is
opposed to this request.
/s/ John M. Nicholson
JOHN M. NICHOLSON
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 24, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document
using the Court’s CM/ECF system, thereby providing service on attorneys of record.
/s/ John M. Nicholson
JOHN M. NICHOLSON
7

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 21 PageID 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Case No. 3:17-MJ-00917-BK
)
Plaintiff, )
) Dallas, Texas
v. ) December 15, 2017
) 2:00 p.m.
CHRISTOPHER MAURICE DANIELS, )
) DETENTION HEARING
Defendant. ) PRELIMINARY HEARING
)
APPEARANCES:
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL D. STICKNEY,
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
For the Government:
For the Defendant:
Recorded by:
Transcribed by:
Jennifer Tourje
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
1100 Commerce Street, 3rd Floor
Dallas, TX 75242-1699
(214) 659-8600
Lara Wynn
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE
525 Griffin Street, Suite 629
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 767-2746
Lavenia Price
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1452
Dallas, TX 75242-1003
(214) 753-2168
Kathy Rehling
311 Paradise Cove
Shady Shores, TX 76208
(972) 786-3063
24
25
Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording;
transcript produced by transcription service.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 2 of 21 PageID 75
Keighley - Direct 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DALLAS, TEXAS - DECEMBER 15, 2017 - 2:14 P.M.
THE COURT: The Court calls United States of America
versus Christopher Maurice Daniels.
MS. TOURJE: Jennifer Tourje for the Government.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. WYNN: Lara Wynn for Mr. Daniels.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Wynn. This is Case No.
3:17-mj-917. We're here on a criminal complaint for probable
cause and detention. Is the Government ready to proceed?
MS. TOURJE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the Defense ready?
MS. WYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The Government may call its
first witness.
MS. TOURJE: Thank you, Your Honor. The Government
calls Special Agent Aaron Keighley.
THE COURT: If you would raise your right hand.
(The witness is sworn.)
THE COURT: Thank you.
AARON KEIGHLEY, GOVERNMENT'S WITNESS, SWORN
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. TOURJE:
23
24
25
Q
A
Q
Good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
Could you spell your name for the record, please?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 3 of 21 PageID 76
Keighley - Direct 3
1
2
3
A
Q
A
Aaron Keighley, K-E-I-G-H-L-E-Y.
How are you employed?
Special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
4
Dallas Division.
5
Q
How long have you worked for the FBI?
6
A I started with the FBI in 2003.
7
Q
And are you the case agent in the case before the Court
8
today?
9
10
A
Q
I am.
Do you see the person in the courtroom that you know as
11
Christopher Maurice Daniels?
12
13
A
Q
Yes.
Could you point to where he may be and describe something
14
15
that he is wearing or something distinctive about his
appearance?
16
A
Seated at the defense table, wearing an orange -- orange
17
clothing.
18
19
20
21
MS. TOURJE: Your Honor, could the record reflect that
he's identified Mr. Daniels?
THE COURT: It will.
BY MS. TOURJE:
22
Q
Special Agent Keighley, how did Mr. Daniels come to the
23
24
FBI's attention back -- let me direct your attention to March
of 2015.
25
A
So, in March 2015, there was a demonstration that was held

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 4 of 21 PageID 77
Keighley - Direct 4
1
in Austin, Texas, that Mr. Daniels participated in.
2
3
Q
A
And how do you know that that was? Was that videotaped?
It was. It was -- it was videotaped and it was aired by
4
several different organizations, one of which was infowars.com.
5
6
7
8
Q
A
Q
A
That's a website?
It is.
And what caught your attention in watching that video?
It was -- it appeared to be an anti-law enforcement
9
demonstration, which included anti-law enforcement slogans.
10
Q
And in the video, did you see Mr. Daniels? Was he
11
portrayed in the video?
12
13
14
A
Q
A
Yes.
And the group that is marching, are they chanting anything?
They are. They were chanting several things, consisting of
15
16
17
"Oink oink bang bang." "The only good pig is a pig that's
dead." And there were a few others that I think are contained
in the report.
18
Q
And that is -- that drew your attention, the FBI's
19
attention, because of the threats to law enforcement?
20
21
A
Q
That is correct.
You have reviewed the exhibits contained in Government
22
Exhibit 1; is that correct?
23
24
A
Q
Correct.
And I've given a copy to defense counsel. Are those -- is
25
Government Exhibit 1 six pages of various Facebook posts by Mr.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 5 of 21 PageID 78
Keighley - Direct 5
1
2
Daniels that you have either seen or it's been brought to your
attention?
3
4
A
Q
Yes, ma'am.
And do each of these Facebook pages fairly and accurately
5
depict what was shown on Mr. Daniels' Facebook page?
6
7
8
A
Q
A
Yes, it does.
Do you know Mr. Daniels to use an alias?
I do.
9
10
Q And is that alias Rakem -- forgive my pronunciation --
Khafre Balogun?
11
12
13
14
A
Q
A
Q
That is one of them, yes.
Do you know him by any other aliases?
Yes. Also, just Rakem Khafre.
And how would you spell that, for the record?
15
A R-A-K-E-M. K-H-A-F-R-E.
16
Q
And are the Facebook posts contained in Government Exhibit
17
1 under that name?
18
19
A
They are.
MS. TOURJE: Your Honor, I'll tender to the Court
20
21
22
23
24
25
Government Exhibit #1 and offer it into evidence.
THE COURT: All right. Any objection?
MS. WYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It's admitted.
(Government's Exhibit 1 is received into evidence.)
BY MS. TOURJE:

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 6 of 21 PageID 79
Keighley - Direct 6
1
Q
Directing your attention, Special Agent Keighley, to Page
2
#1, is that from August of 2015?
3
A
It is.
4
5
6
Q And let me clarify. On Page 1 of Government Exhibit 1,
there is a handwritten note in the upper corner that says "8-
2015." Is that your handwriting?
7
8
A
Q
It is.
Aside from that, this is Mr. Daniels' post; is that
9
correct?
10
11
A
Q
That is correct.
And did you note that on there because when it's documented
12
13
14
on the Facebook post, on this particular page, on Page 1, it
says it was 16 hours ago, but actually it was back in 2015; is
that correct?
15
16
17
A
Q
A
Correct.
And on Page 1, what is significant about this post?
So, the significance of this post is that it appears to be
18
19
20
21
22
23
a news clip, an Action 5 news clip regarding a fugitive
investigation, or a manhunt, if you will. The picture of the
gentleman there is Tremaine Wilbourn, and Tremaine Wilbourn was
a suspect in the slaying of a Memphis police officer. The
caption that is posted next to it is, "Salute to a Real" -- or,
"Salute a Real Hero."
24
25
Q
A
And that was posted by Mr. Daniels?
Correct.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 7 of 21 PageID 80
Keighley - Direct 7
1
Q
On Page 2 -- before we get to that, let me just put for the
2
3
4
record, on July 7, 2016, just down the street here in downtown
Dallas, were five police officers gunned down by a person known
as Micah Johnson?
5
6
A
Q
Yes, ma'am.
And were those officers from the DART Police Department,
7
8
the Dallas Area Rapid Transit, and four officers from the
Dallas Police Department?
9
A
Yes, ma'am.
10
Q And was Mr. Johnson also known as Micah X?
11
12
13
14
A
Q
A
Q
Yes, ma'am.
Was Mr. Johnson killed after a standoff with police?
Yes, ma'am.
In anticipation and surrounding the one-year anniversary of
15
16
the murders of those police officers, did Mr. Daniels post
anything on his social media?
17
A
He did.
18
Q And is that depicted in Government Exhibit 1, Page 2?
19
20
21
A
Q
A
It is.
And can you describe the significance of that to the Court?
So, the first one is a post of a dallasnews.com article
22
23
talking about the July 7th ambush, and the caption there is,
"They deserve what they got. LMAO!"
24
Q
And from your training and experience and living in the
25
social media/texting world, what does LMAO stand for?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 8 of 21 PageID 81
Keighley - Direct 8
1
2
3
4
5
A
Q
A
Q
A
Laughing My Ass Off.
At the shooting of the police officers?
Correct.
On Page 3 of Government Exhibit 1, what does that show?
So, this is kind of a notification or a posting, if you
6
7
8
9
10
will, that happens on Facebook when somebody changes their
profile picture or the main picture that you see when you come
onto their page. And this is saying that Mr. Daniels updated
his profile picture, and the picture there is a picture of Mr.
Johnson.
11
12
13
Q
--
A
That's of Micah Johnson prior to the July 7, 2016 murders;
Correct.
14
Q -- is that correct? On Page 4, is this from July 7, 2017?
15
16
17
A
Q
A
It is.
And what does that show?
That shows Mr. Daniels wearing a t-shirt that shows a
18
19
20
21
22
picture of an AK-47. It also shows two crime scene photos from
the July 7, 2016 incident where Micah Johnson was killed. The
caption there is, "I'm wearing brown and khaki in solidarity
for Micah X. #77." And the significance of #77 is, of course,
July 7th. Yeah, July 7th.
23
Q
So, on Page 4 of Government Exhibit 1, he's showing his
24
solidarity with the murderer of the police officers; --
25
A
Correct.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 9 of 21 PageID 82
Keighley - Direct 9
1
2
Q
A
-- is that correct?
Correct.
3
Q And on Page 5, is that also from July 7, 2017?
4
5
A
Q
Yes.
And this is Page 5 of Government Exhibit 1. And in this,
6
is Mr. Daniels reposting on Facebook a post from somebody else?
7
8
9
A
Q
A
He is.
And what does that post say?
It says, "Tomorrow they will mourn the police. We will be
10
11
saluting Micah Johnson. We will remember Philando Castile,
Alton Sterling, and others, with revenge in our hearts."
12
Q
And finally, on Page 6 of Government Exhibit 1, also from
13
14
July 7, 2017, the one-year anniversary of the Dallas shootings,
what did the Defendant post on his Facebook?
15
A
The caption there is, "Today, one year ago, one black man
16
brought Dallas Pig Department to their knees. #77."
17
Q
Did you learn that Mr. Daniels planned to attend a training
18
event on November 18, 2017 in Detroit, Michigan?
19
20
A
Q
Yes, ma'am.
Did you also learn that the Defendant placed a firearm in
21
his checked luggage for his flight from DFW Airport to Detroit?
22
23
A
Q
Yes, ma'am.
Upon his return to Dallas from Detroit the next day,
24
25
November 19, 2017, did you learn what happened to Mr. Daniels'
luggage?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 10 of 21 PageID 83
Keighley - Direct 10
1
A
Yes. He requested that it be delivered to his residence in
2
Dallas.
3
Q
So he wasn't able to pick it up; there was a delay with the
4
luggage?
5
6
A
Q
Correct.
The DFW Airport and the Defendant's apartment in Dallas,
7
are those both in the Northern District of Texas?
8
9
A
Q
They are.
And the Defendant's apartment, Mr. Daniels' apartment, is
10
that known as the Rock Creek Apartments?
11
12
A
Q
It is.
And at some point, did surveillance see Mr. Daniels return
13
to that apartment from the airport?
14
15
A
Q
They did.
And have you also seen Mr. Daniels leave from that
16
apartment and go to his job in Carrollton?
17
18
A
Q
Yes, we have.
Did you obtain documentation from the airline, which is
19
20
Spirit Airlines, that Mr. Daniels possessed and subsequently
checked a firearm on or about November 18, 2017?
21
22
23
24
A
Q
A
Q
We did.
Was that a claim check with his signature and a bag tag?
It was.
Did Spirit Airlines tell you what would happen to the other
25
half of the claim check?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 11 of 21 PageID 84
Keighley - Direct 11
1
A
Yes. They claim that a person would retain the other half
2
3
of the claim check and that's what they would use to pick up
the item.
4
Q
Did you also learn from them what type of firearm was
5
checked?
6
7
A
Q
Yes.
Was that a Taurus Poly Protector 38 Special +P .38 caliber
8
handgun?
9
10
A
Q
Yes.
Did you check with the airline to find out if the luggage
11
was actually delivered to the Rock Creek apartment?
12
13
A
Q
I did.
And is that the address that Mr. Daniels gave where it
14
should be delivered?
15
16
A
Q
It was.
Did you also learn that Mr. Daniels was prohibited from
17
possessing a firearm?
18
19
A
Q
I did.
Was Mr. Daniels convicted of domestic assault in February
20
of 2007 in Tennessee?
21
22
A
Q
He was.
Have you -- excuse me. Was that conviction a misdemeanor
23
crime of domestic violence?
24
25
A
Q
It was.
Have you reviewed that judgment and conviction?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 12 of 21 PageID 85
Keighley - Direct 12
1
2
A
Q
I have.
And does it state anything on that judgment and conviction
3
concerning firearms?
4
A
It is handwritten, presumably by the judge, that he is not
5
to possess a firearm.
6
Q
Does it state on there that Defendant advised he cannot
7
possess a gun?
8
9
A
Q
It does.
So, he is a prohibited person from possessing a firearm; is
10
that correct?
11
12
A
Q
That is correct.
As part of your investigation, did you get a search warrant
13
14
signed by Magistrate Judge Ramirez for the Rock Creek apartment
to look for the firearm and the claim check, among other items?
15
16
A
Q
We did.
Was that executed by the FBI this past Tuesday, December
17
12, 2017?
18
19
20
21
A
Q
A
Q
It was.
And were you present for the search at some point?
I was.
Can you please describe the apartment?
22
A So, it was a --
23
24
Q
A
Generally.
A one-bedroom apartment. Living area, kitchen, one bedroom
25
and a bathroom, with a cot and a couch in the living area, in

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 13 of 21 PageID 86
Keighley - Direct 13
1
the living room.
2
3
4
Q
A
Q
Were any firearms recovered?
Yes. Two firearms were recovered.
Was one of them the Taurus .38 handgun that I referenced
5
earlier?
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
It was.
And where was that located?
It was located on a nightstand next to the bed.
Was it loaded?
It was loaded.
In connection with that weapon, did you consult with the
12
13
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms Bureau to see if it had traveled in
interstate commerce?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
We did.
And did it?
It did.
What other weapon was recovered?
There was a Norinco brand AK-style assault rifle.
And where was that located?
It was located within inches of the foot of the bed.
And you said that there was a cot in the apartment as well.
22
Was that in the bedroom or --
23
24
25
A
Q
A
It was in the living area.
Okay.
In the living room.

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 14 of 21 PageID 87
Keighley - Direct 14
1
2
3
4
Q
A
Q
A
So the mattress and the bed was in the bedroom?
Was in the bedroom, yes.
Was that rifle loaded or unloaded?
The rifle contained a magazine but the magazine was empty.
5
6
However, there was a fully-loaded magazine also within arm's
reach of the bed.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Was any ammunition recovered?
Yes. Somewhere between 50 to 100 7.67 caliber ammunition.
Was there also body armor located in the apartment?
There was a body armor in the apartment.
You said that there was a cot in the living room?
Yes.
From your understanding, who was staying on the cot?
14
15
16
A There -- I believe there was a juvenile that was staying --
I believe when they made entry that was where he was laying or
where he was sleeping.
17
Q
Were there any other indications that children lived in
18
that apartment?
19
A
Yeah. There were a few child items. There were -- there
20
21
22
23
24
25
was a child's -- several child's backpacks. Also, notebooks,
homework, things of that nature.
MS. TOURJE: I'll pass the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross?
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS. WYNN:

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 15 of 21 PageID 88
Keighley - Cross 15
1
2
3
Q
A
Q
Good afternoon, Agent Keighley.
Good morning.
Whenever you made of contact with Mr. Daniels upon entry of
4
his apartment, was he compliant with officers?
5
6
A
Q
He was.
And so you had no issues to any commands and he didn't
7
resist at all --
8
9
10
11
A
Q
A
Q
No.
-- when encountered?
He did not.
And you noted that one of the weapons recovered was the
12
Norinco, and you said it was an AK-style rifle?
13
14
A
Q
Yes.
So, it wasn't -- you're not saying that it is, say, an AK-
15
47 or an AR-15 type? It's just that particular style of rifle?
16
A
Yes. And forgive me, I'm not a weapons expert, but an AK-
17
18
19
47 is a specific manufacturer. The AK abbreviation is a
specific manufacturer. So it looks like one but it's made by a
different company.
20
Q
Okay. And regarding your review of Mr. Daniels' social
21
22
23
media, did you recover any evidence of any statements by Mr.
Daniels specifically saying he would harm a law enforcement
officer?
24
25
A
Q
No, not specifically.
Okay. And did you recover any statements from Mr. Daniels

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 16 of 21 PageID 89
Keighley - Cross 16
1
2
saying that he specifically wanted to harm a law enforcement
officer?
3
A
Not necessarily specific. The only one that kind of comes
4
5
6
7
8
to mind is there was a video in which he kind of made comments
about, look at my history, I'm not afraid to get violent, or
something to that effect. Or, yeah, so I can't quote it
exactly because it came from a video. It wasn't like a written
posting. But something to that nature.
9
Q
And was that video from the Austin protest of March of
10
2015?
11
A
No. That's a video that currently exists on his Facebook
12
13
page. I'm not sure when it was posted or where it was from,
what time frame, but it exists there now.
14
Q
And have you recovered any evidence of Mr. Daniels
15
16
specifically directing another individual to cause harm to a
law enforcement officer?
17
A
No.
18
19
20
21
MS. WYNN: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Other questions?
MS. TOURJE: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. You may step down. Thank you,
22
sir.
23
24
25
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(The witness steps down.)
THE COURT: What other evidence from the Government?

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 17 of 21 PageID 90
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. TOURJE: Your Honor, the Government would just
proffer the contents of the Pretrial Services report, and then
we'll rest.
THE COURT: Thank you. For the Defense?
MS. WYNN: No witnesses, Your Honor. We would just
proffer that as far as ties to the community, Mr. Daniels does
have several close family members here in the audience today
supporting him, including his 15-year-old son and his I believe
five-month-old daughter. And then we'll just save for
argument. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. For the Government?
MS. TOURJE: Your Honor, the Government would submit
that it has proved the elements of the offense alleged in the
complaint so that probable cause has been established for
possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
As for detention, the danger to the community, in
connection with the instant offense of possessing a firearm,
not only on November 18, 2017 but also when law enforcement
executed the warrant on December 12th, as defense counsel just
proffered, there are small children who had access -- well,
she'd proffer that there are small children having contact with
the Defendant. Also, from Special Agent Keighley's testimony,
a minor was in the apartment when there was a readily
accessible AK-47 style rifle as well as a loaded handgun.
Mr. Daniels' criminal history in the Pretrial Services

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 18 of 21 PageID 91
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
report is a history of assaultive prior arrests and
convictions. And in that, as to flight, is a failure to appear
on the aggravated assault case, which was subsequently lowered
to the domestic violence conviction that is the subject of the
prohibited person.
In addition, he gives inconsistent information to Pretrial
Services when he's interviewed, given that of his mother as
well. So there is -- for example, his mother doesn't -- has
not been to the apartment. She doesn't think that he's
married, and then he says that he is married. But, really, the
totality of the evidence here is that he's a danger to the
community, there is a risk of flight, and the Government would
submit that there's sufficient evidence to detain Mr. Daniels
pending trial, that there's no condition or combination of
conditions that would ensure the safety of the community.
THE COURT: Thank you. Lara?
MS. WYNN: Thank you, Your Honor. Regarding the
flight risk for Mr. Daniels, he does have a home here in the
Northern District of Texas. And as testified by the agent,
they observed him leaving to go to work. And he does have, as
I proffered, many family, friends, and children who live here,
including his parents. And so he has significant ties to this
particular community.
Going towards the danger to the community, as the agent
testified, he himself has not made any statements or any

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 19 of 21 PageID 92
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
indications that he has any desires to harm law enforcement
officers or have anyone else do so.
And of course, the First Amendment is one of the
cornerstones of our democracy, and it allows individuals to
make statements or espouse opinions that others may not agree
with, or share the opinions of others that may not be kind or
may in fact be hateful. But if they do not cross a line in
which they are going to incite violence, and he himself has not
indicated that he wants to partake in any sort of violence like
that, then his statements, however they are viewed by the law
enforcement, they are simply protected by the First Amendment
and he should not be detained because they don't agree with the
statements and the opinions that he may have.
They're also relying on his criminal history that dates
back to over ten years ago. His misdemeanor conviction for
assault was in February of 2007, so we're going on almost 11
years ago. There's been no evidence presented that he has
engaged in any sort of behavior of that sort in the past
decade.
And so we would ask Your Honor to deny the Government's
motion to detain and find that there are adequate conditions in
which to assure Mr. Daniels' appearances as required and the
safety of the community. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
The Court does find there is probable cause to believe a

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 20 of 21 PageID 93
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
crime was committed and that Mr. Daniels committed it.
Includes prohibited person in possession of firearms.
In addition, based on the evidence as presented here today,
the Court finds that Mr. Daniels, I don't really have any
evidence that he's a risk of flight, but I do find that he's a
danger to the safety of the community. I order him detained
during the pendency of this action.
What else for the Government?
MS. TOURJE: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: For the Defense?
MS. WYNN: Nothing further, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(Proceedings concluded at 2:35 p.m.)
--oOo--
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from
the digital sound recording of the proceedings in the aboveentitled
matter.
/s/ Kathy Rehling 12/28/2017
24
25
______________________________________
Kathy Rehling, CETD-444
Certified Electronic Court Transcriber
________________
Date

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-1 Filed 01/24/18 Page 21 of 21 PageID 94
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
INDEX
PROCEEDINGS 2
WITNESSES
Government's Witnesses
Aaron Keighley
- Direct Examination by Ms. Tourje 3
- Cross-Examination by Ms. Wynn 14
EXHIBITS
Government's Exhibits
Identified Received
1 Facebook Pages 4 5
RULINGS 19
END OF PROCEEDINGS 20
INDEX 21
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID 95

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID 96

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID 97

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID 98

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID 99

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-2 Filed 01/24/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID 100

Case 3:18-cr-00005-D Document 22-3 Filed 01/24/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 101
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § 3:18-CR-005-D
§
§
CHRISTOPHER MAURICE DANIELS, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION APPEALING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
DETENTION ORDER
Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion Appealing the Magistrate Judge’s Detention
Order, said Motion is GRANTED this _____ day of _______________, 2018.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
1