The Denver-based federal appeals court overturned a judge’s order keeping a defendant in custody pending trial on Friday, ruling 2-1 that she was entitled to release under the law.

Erika Esmeralda Garcia stands accused of two charges related to the possession and distribution of fentanyl, plus a charge for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Previously, a magistrate judge and district judge acknowledged it was a “close call” whether Garcia merited pretrial release, but they concluded the government had shown she was a likely flight risk.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. In an unusual unsigned order on Dec. 5, the majority noted the Bail Reform Act allows for pretrial detention when “no condition or combination of conditions” will ensure a defendant appears in court and will not pose a risk to the community. The majority believed most of the relevant factors favored Garcia.

“The district court was not required to explicitly mention every piece of evidence, but we are troubled by its failure to acknowledge most of the compelling character evidence in Ms. Garcia’s favor,” wrote Judges Veronica S. Rossman and Richard E.N. Federico, both former public defenders appointed by Joe Biden. “Ms. Garcia’s lack of criminal history indicates that her release would not endanger the community. Her personal characteristics, including her employment history and strong family and community ties, also undercut the idea that she poses a danger to the community.”

Judge Gregory A. Phillips dissented, arguing that all of the factors supported Garcia’s confinement.

“I agree with the district court’s conclusion that Ms. Garcia’s history and characteristics present a close call but ultimately weigh in favor of detention,” wrote Phillips, the former attorney general of Wyoming appointed by Barack Obama.

In March 2024, the government executed a search warrant at an apartment in northeast Denver. Agents allegedly found methamphetamine, two “AR-style ghost guns,” and hundreds of grams of cocaine, heroin and fentanyl. Garcia was not home during the search.

For reasons that were unclear on appeal, Garcia was not arrested until June 2025. The government requested that she be detained until trial. At a hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella determined the “significant amount of drugs” suggested Garcia was a danger to the community.

As for whether she was a flight risk, that was “a close call,” said Starnella.

“This is, you know, a somewhat more challenging call because you don’t have a criminal history,” she said.

However, Starnella determined it was possible Garcia would flee to Mexico, where she is originally from. Although Garcia had three young adult children, Starnella observed, “perhaps it’s easier” to support them if Garcia were on the run. Finally, it was possible Garcia would flee to avoid at least a decade in prison.

The defense appealed Starnella’s detention decision. In a brief order, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico once again labeled it a “close call,” but agreed the “temptation and opportunity for Garcia to flee to Mexico” were concerning.

But the 10th Circuit’s majority saw differently. It acknowledged the charges against Garcia were serious and weighed in favor of detention, and that Domenico and Starnella were correct to account for Garcia’s flight risk to Mexico.

However, Rossman and Federico determined Domenico was wrong to observe that Garcia “alerted codefendants that a large cache of drugs and weapons were confiscated at her home.” Although Garcia’s language was cryptic, she did not mention drugs and weapons.

Moreover, Domenico did not acknowledge Garcia’s lack of criminal history and the absence of any drug abuse or gang affiliation.

“She has a stable employment history and strong community ties, as evidenced by the letter from her employer and the numerous character letters from her friends and family members. Ms. Garcia also has strong family ties in Colorado,” the majority wrote. Taken together, “we have no doubt that there are release conditions that can reasonably assure her appearance at trial.”

Phillips wrote in dissent that although Domenico did not mention those factors, he had “no doubt” Domenico considered Garcia’s personal characteristics when determining the case was a close call. Phillips indicated he would have upheld the detention order.

The case is United States v. Garcia.