The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, a United States District Judge, has ruled that Jordan Holley must remain in detention pending his trial. Holley is facing charges of traveling with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, specifically related to a planned encounter with a supposed nine-year-old child. Judge Sullivan’s decision, outlined in a detailed memorandum opinion, stems from the court’s assessment of the case, the evidence presented, and the potential danger Holley poses to the community.
The case originated from an online interaction between Holley and an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Task Force Officer posing as a person interested in child sexual abuse. The online conversations, which the court reviewed extensively, detailed Holley’s interest in engaging in sexual acts with the undercover officer’s purported daughter. The discussions became increasingly explicit, with Holley suggesting he could be a “stunt cock” for the child and offering to meet in person.
On September 10, 2025, Holley met with the undercover officer in Washington, D.C., confirming his online identity. He was subsequently arrested. Following his arrest, the FBI searched Holley’s electronic devices, uncovering further disturbing communications.
The Government’s Case and the Court’s Findings
The government presented a strong case, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the evidence collected. Key points include:
* Online Conversations: The court cited numerous online exchanges between Holley and various individuals discussing child sexual abuse. These conversations were not limited to a single interaction but spanned a period of time.
* Planning and Travel: The court highlighted Holley’s actions, which went beyond mere online talk. He traveled from Maryland to Washington, D.C., with the intent to meet and engage in sexual activity with the purported child. He brought with him items such as lubricant, condoms, and a mask, which the court found corroborative of his intent.
* Graphic Descriptions: The court noted Holley’s detailed descriptions of past encounters and future desires to sexually abuse children. These descriptions included graphic and violent language.
The court’s analysis followed the legal standard for pretrial detention, outlined in the Bail Reform Act of 1984. This law allows for detention if a judicial officer finds that no conditions or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. In this case, the court determined that the government had met its burden of proof.
Holley’s Arguments and the Court’s Response
Holley’s defense argued that the strict release conditions initially imposed by a magistrate judge would adequately protect the community. These conditions included home incarceration, mental health assessments, restrictions on electronic device use, and constant supervision by his parents.
However, Judge Sullivan rejected this argument, stating that the proposed conditions were insufficient to mitigate the risk posed by Holley. The court expressed concerns about the ability of Holley’s parents to provide continuous supervision, given the potential for Holley to circumvent the restrictions.
The court also considered the nature of the offenses, the weight of the evidence, and Holley’s history and characteristics. While the court acknowledged Holley’s lack of a prior criminal record, it found that the evidence of his intent, the planning, and the graphic nature of his communications outweighed this factor.
The Rebuttable Presumption and the Court’s Decision
The court acknowledged the rebuttable presumption of dangerousness, which arises when there is probable cause to believe a defendant committed an offense involving a minor victim. The court found that Holley did not successfully rebut this presumption.
Judge Sullivan concluded that the proposed release conditions, while rigorous, were not sufficient to ensure the safety of the community. He noted that Holley could potentially bypass the restrictions and engage in further harmful behavior. The court therefore denied Holley’s motion to reinstate the original release conditions and ordered him to remain in pretrial detention.