Court denies bond reduction for James T. DuBois Jr.; judge cites prior record and statutory bail factors

A Dixon County judge denied a defense motion to reduce bond for James Thomas DuBois Jr. in case 2024CR0137 after evidence and argument that the defendant faces numerous counts, a lengthy criminal history and prior failures to appear.

Defense counsel asked the court to lower bond, arguing the defendant has steady work, local family ties and would comply with conditions such as an ankle monitor or reporting to probation. DuBois testified that he has lived in the area, works in construction, has a six-year-old son and said he could come up with $5,000 immediately to help secure release; he also described completion of jail educational courses and enrollment in programs.

On behalf of the state, Lieutenant Troy Martin of the Dixon County Sheriff's Office described an investigation of nine locations and roughly 27 vehicles burglarized on July 18, 2024; investigators executed a search warrant at 358 Old Highway 70 in White Bluff, located property in a converted living area, and recovered several small items and a speaker. Martin testified that statements by a co-defendant (Hall) led to searches and to items recovered that connected to the alleged burglaries; Martin said investigators also recovered Ring doorbell camera footage and other materials later reviewed and provided to the assistant district attorney.

Defense cross-examination focused on the affidavit supporting the search warrant and whether the affidavit sufficiently tied the recovered property to the defendant's residence. The defense challenged reliance on Mr. Hall's statements and raised the possibility that Hall could have placed items at the residence. The state relied on investigative actions, recovered property and the defendant's prior convictions and failures to appear.

Citing the statutory bail factors in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-11-118 — including the defendant's criminal history, previous failures to appear, the nature and number of charges, and the risk of consecutive sentencing — the court concluded that the motion to reduce bond was not well taken and denied the motion. The judge noted the defendant had been jailed for 19 months and said the court would set trial dates when the parties were ready, but would not lower bond given the factors presented.