United States of America v. Tolliver-Maddox

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:26-CR-14
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
JE’VION TOLLIVER-MADDOX, 	)
)
Defendant. 	) 	ORDER
) 	[Resolving ECF No. 20]
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Reopen Detention Hearing Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(2). ECF No. 20 [SEALED]. As of the date of this Order, Defendant has not
responded. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted. The matter of detention is
reopened and the case is referred to Magistrate Judge Sheperd to conduct another hearing.
I. 	BACKGROUND
A. The Complaint for Robbery
Defendant Je’Vion Tolliver-Maddox was charged by criminal complaint with: (1)
Robbery of Mail, Money, or Other Property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
2114; (2) Keys or Locks Stolen or Reproduced, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704; (3) Using or
Carrying of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and (4)
Bank Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. ECF No. 1.
The complaint alleges that on September 9, 2025, Defendant, in concert with others,
robbed a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) mail carrier at gunpoint in Ohio City to obtain a
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 1 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
2
USPS Arrow Key.1 ECF No. 1-1, ⁋ 16; ECF No. 20 [SEALED] at PageID #: 143. Security
video from the area depicted the gunman retreating to the passenger seat of a white Ford Edge.
Using Ohio BMV records, law enforcement connected the vehicle to Defendant. ECF No. 1-1,
⁋⁋ 17–18.
Later that same day, Defendant reported his vehicle stolen, telling police he had
abandoned the vehicle (with the car keys inside) the night before after drinking at a friend’s
house. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋⁋ 30–31. The vehicle was located on September 10, 2025, and Defendant
consented to having the vehicle searched. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋ 35. Part of this search included a
forensic extraction of the vehicle’s “infotainment center” and location data. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋ 37.
Data collected from the vehicle indicated that Defendant’s phone connected to the vehicle’s
Apple CarPlay system on September 9, 2025, contradicting Defendant’s claim that he had not
seen the car since the day before. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋⁋ 37–40. In addition, cell tower data pinged
Defendant’s cell phone at eight key areas and times where the vehicle had been witnessed before,
during, and after the robbery on September 9, 2025. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋ 41.
Ten days after the robbery, Defendant began fraudulently depositing checks stolen from
mailboxes. Investigators also observed Defendant using social media to recruit co-conspirators
to fraudulently deposit checks taken from mailboxes. ECF No. 1-1, ⁋⁋ 47–64.
B. Preliminary and Detention Hearing
Defendant was arrested on December 18, 2025. At his initial appearance, he requested a
detention and preliminary hearing. See Minutes of proceedings [non-document] before
1 A universal master key used by USPS employees to access collection boxes,
outdoor parcel lockers, cluster box units, and apartment panels to collect mail and
packages. Arrow Keys are subject to extensive security measures and regulations. ECF
No. 1-1, ⁋ 8.
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 2 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
3
Magistrate Judge Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong (Dec. 18, 2025). Magistrate Judge Reuben J.
Sheperd conducted a detention hearing on December 29, 2025, and ordered Defendant released
on conditions. ECF No. 8; ECF No. 13.
During the hearing, the parties agreed that there is a presumption of detention. ECF No.
13 at PageID ##: 64–65. The Government proffered four exhibits: (1) the criminal Complaint
(ECF No. 1); (2) a Ring security camera video of the robbery; (3) an Instagram post in which the
other robbery suspect asked about Defendant’s plans to use of the “the key”; and (4) an inventory
list from the search warrant executed at Defendant’s residence. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 67.
The Government also informed the magistrate judge that the investigation was ongoing, and that
additional information was needed to determine the role everyone played in the robbery. ECF
No. 13 at PageID #: 98.
After challenging probable cause, Defendant presented evidence rebutting the
presumption of detention. His mother testified that Defendant lived with her and that she kept
two firearms in the house, which police confiscated when they arrested Defendant. ECF No. 13
at PageID ##: 87–89. She further testified that, if released on bond, Defendant would continue to
reside with her and work for Spark, a Walmart delivery service. ECF No. 13 at PageID ##: 89 –
90. Defendant also proffered that he has no history of drug abuse, has lived in Cleveland his
entire life and has strong community ties, including family members who attended the hearing in
support. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 95.
The magistrate judge first concluded that there was sufficient probable cause and bound
the matter over to the grand jury. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 107. Next, the magistrate judge
addressed the issue of detention, finding that Defendant satisfied his burden to rebut the
presumption of detention, based on his mother’s testimony, community support system, and
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 3 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
4
limited criminal history. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 108. The burden then shifted to the
Government to provide clear and convincing evidence that no conditions would assure
Defendant’s appearance at court proceedings or the safety of the community. The magistrate
judge indicated that there was no evidence suggesting that Defendant was a flight risk. ECF No.
13 at PageID #: 108.
Weighing the § 3142(g) factors, the magistrate judge concluded that the nature and
circumstances of the alleged crime weighed in favor of detention because holding a federal
employee at gunpoint and taking federal property (i.e., the Arrow Key) was serious and
dangerous. Next, the magistrate judge determined Defendant’s personal characteristics weighed
against detention because of Defendant’s limited criminal history and community support. The
magistrate judge acknowledged that Defendant was potentially dishonest when he reported his
vehicle stolen and claimed that he did not own a cell phone. The court also noted that the violent
nature of the alleged crime (i.e., robbing a federal employee at gunpoint) weighed against
Defendant. ECF No. 13 at PageID ##: 109–11. The magistrate judge concluded that the
decision was a “close” call but concluded that the Government had not demonstrated by clear
and convincing evidence that Defendant posed a flight risk or that there were no conditions that
could reasonably assure the safety of the community. Defendant was released on a $20,000
unsecured bond with several conditions, including home detention. ECF No. 13 at PageID #:
114.
On January 7, 2026, a grand jury returned an indictment against Defendant for: (1)
Robbery of Property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2114; (2) Keys or Locks
Stolen or Reproduced, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1704; and (3) five counts of Bank Fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2). ECF No. 10
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 4 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
5
C. Newly Discovered Information
Following Defendant’s arrest and detention hearing, the criminal investigation continued
and remains ongoing. ECF No. 20 [SEALED] at PageID #: 146. As part of that investigation
and after Defendant’s detention hearing had concluded, law enforcement obtained a search
warrant for a suspected co-conspirator’s cell phone and data that was extracted from that device.
Although review of the data is ongoing, information is now available relating to Defendant’s
involvement before, during, and after the armed robbery. Such information includes, inter alia:
(1) at least six FaceTime calls between Defendant’s phone and the other robbery suspect the
morning of the robbery, including two calls logged by the Ford Edge’s system; (2) Defendant’s
vehicle was at the other robbery suspect’s house the morning of the robbery; and (3) a group text
started by Defendant that contain photographs of Defendant driving the Ford Edge the morning
of the robbery, undermining his claims that the vehicle had been stolen the night before. ECF
No. 20 [SEALED] at PageID ##: 146–48.
II. 	LAW AND DISCUSSION
The Government seeks to reopen the detention hearing based on the new information
obtained after since December 29, 2025. A detention hearing
may be reopened, before or after a determination by the judicial
officer, at any time before trial 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.
18 U.S.C. § 3142(f). The statutory provision is strictly interpreted, and a detention hearing may
only be reopened “if the evidence proffered was [not] available at the time of the hearing.”
United States v. Floyd, No. 5:21-cr-736-4, 2022 WL 2818445, at *3 (N.D. Ohio July 18, 2022)
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 5 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
6
(Lioi, J.); see United States v. Bothra, No. 20-1364, 2020 WL 2611545, at *1 (6th Cir. May 21,
2020) (“Courts interpret this requirement strictly, requiring a showing of truly changed
circumstances or a significant event.”). The new information must be material to the
determination that bond conditions will “reasonably assure” that the defendant will appear a trial
and the safety of the community. United States v. Watson, 475 F. App’x 598, 600 (6th Cir.
2012); United States v. Knott, No. 1:23-cr-279, 2023 WL4116011, at *4 (N.D. Ohio June 22,
2023) (Brennan, J.).
The Government first argues that the other robbery suspect’s cell phone device was
searched after Defendant’s detention hearing and, as such, the information discovered on that
device was not previously known to the Government. ECF No. 20 [SEALED]. That argument is
well taken. The data from the other robbery suspect’s phone was not available to the
Government until after the search warrant was executed, which did not occur until after
December 29, 2025 (i.e., date of Defendant’s detention hearing). The information is, therefore,
new information.
Next, the Government argues that the new information is material to the determination of
whether there are conditions that will reasonably assure Defendant appears in these proceedings
and public safety. See Watson, 475 F. App’x at 600. New information must indicate “truly
changed circumstances, something unexpected, or a significant event” to warrant reopening a
detention hearing. Floyd, 2022 WL 2818445, at *3 (quoting United States v. Jerdine, No. 1:08-
cr-481, 2009 WL 406564, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 18, 2009)) (internal quotation omitted).
During the detention hearing, the Government conceded that the investigation was
ongoing and that it was, at that time, unclear what role Defendant allegedly played in the
robbery. ECF No. 13 at PageID #: 98. Now the new information purports to place Defendant in
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 6 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
7
the driver’s seat of the getaway vehicle (which he later reported had been stolen the previous
evening), driving around with the robbery suspect mere hours before the crime occurred. ECF
No. 20 [SEALED] at PageID ##: 149–50. The Government argues that such information calls
into question not only whether Defendant can and will comply with any bond conditions, but
also whether the community will be safe during his release. In particular, the Government
maintains that Defendant facilitated and participated in an armed robbery of a federal employee
and then fraudulently told police his vehicle had been stolen the night before the robbery to
conceal his involvement. ECF No. 20 [SEALED] at PageID ##: 149–50.
Furthermore, the new information undermines Defendant’s claims that the vehicle was
stolen prior to the robbery and that he did not have a phone at the time of the robbery. As such,
the Government legitimately questions whether Defendant will comply with his bond restrictions
or truthfully interact with Pretrial Services, given he has already lied to police in an alleged
attempt to cover up his conduct on September 9, 2025. The Government argues that these
considerations, in combination with the severe nature of the alleged crime, indicate that
reopening the detention hearing is appropriate. The Court agrees that the newly discovered
information is significant and may impact the § 3142(g) analysis, warranting that the detention
hearing be reopened.
Therefore, this case is referred to Magistrate Judge Sheperd to conduct another hearing
and to weigh again the § 3142(g) factors in light of the new information proffered by the
Government and responded to by the defense. See United States v. Baker, No. 6:21-cr-32-CHB,
2021 WL 2744512, at *4 (E.D. Ky. July 1, 2021) (citing United States v. Cisneros, 328 F.3d 610,
614 (10th Cir. 2003) (“[I]f a magistrate judge conducts the initial detention hearing, any motions
to reopen that hearing under § 3142(f) should be directed at that same magistrate judge.).
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 7 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:26CR14)
8
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Government’s Motion to Reopen the Detention Hearing
(ECF No. 20 [SEALED]) is granted. During or prior to that reopened hearing, Defendant shall
be given an opportunity to respond to the newly discovered evidence. Magistrate Judge Sheperd
shall conduct the reopened hearing and weigh again the § 3142(g) factors in light of the new
information proffered by the Government and responded to by the defense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 4, 2026 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 1:26-cr-00014-BYP Doc #: 21 Filed: 02/04/26 8 of 8. PageID #: <pageID>