CLAYTON COUNTY, Ga. — Federal prosecutors are citing Victor Hill's "crimes of violence" as they oppose his motion for bond pending the appeal against his October conviction of violating the civil rights of detainees at the Clayton County Jail.
Hill, the influential and politically formidable former sheriff of Clayton County, was sentenced to 18 months in prison in March after he was found guilty on six of the seven charges against him. The charges related to the use of a restraint chair against detainees at the jail.
A judge ordered Hill to turn himself in at a federal prison in Arkansas on May 15 to begin serving his sentence.
Attorneys for Hill have appealed the conviction and, according to court documents, on April 12 they filed a motion seek to allow Hill to be free pending an outcome of the appeal.
Federal prosecutors in the Atlanta U.S. Attorney's Office filed their response on Thursday.
They argue Hill is not eligible for bond because "he was convicted of a 'crime of violence'" and that he "failed to identify any 'substantial' questions that he intends to raise on appeal."
"Here, this Court must detain Hill because the jury found him guilty of six offenses that are crimes of violence," a filing states.
It notes that each count in the indictment against Hill, who was allowed to resign as sheriff after his conviction, "alleged that Hill's conduct resulted in bodily injury to the victim.:"
"The offenses of which Hill was convicted required a jury to find that Hill both willfully used force against another and inflicted bodily injury. Accordingly, each of Hill’s offenses is categorically an elements-clause crime of violence," the filing states.
The filing further explains the importance of the "substantial" standard, the second basis for their opposition: "The district court must detain these defendants pending appeal unless the court finds, among other things, that the appeal 'raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.'"
It argues that of the three items Hill intends to raise on appeal - " whether he had fair warning that his excessive uses of force violated the Constitution;" "whether the evidence was insufficient to convict him;" and "whether this Court erred in giving a modified Allen charge to the jury after an alternate juror subbed in for an ill juror," - none should legally considered "substantial."