Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Appeals Court frees Molotov Cocktail Lawyers on bail and home confinement

Appeals Court frees Molotov Cocktail Lawyers on bail and home confinement

Dissent: “The majority’s decision to affirm the release of these Appellees from pretrial detention subjects the community to an unacceptable risk of danger.”

EDNY photos okay to use

On June 5, 2020, we reported that Appeals Court Orders Molotov Cocktail Lawyers Back to Jail:

Two Brooklyn-based lawyers facing federal charges for allegedly throwing Molotov cocktails into a NYPD cruiser during the riots are back in federal custody after an appeals court reversed the bail decision.

That initial and temporary appeals court decision now has been reversed, with a panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ordering the defendants released on bail and home confinement pending trial.

The majority Opinion (pdf.) ruled:

In sum, Pretrial Services, Magistrate Judge Gold, and Judge Brodie all concluded, notwithstanding the acknowledged seriousness of the charged offense, that bail is appropriate for both Rahman and Mattis based on the absence of any criminal records and on their family obligations, their ties to the community and the number of suretors who support them.

***

There is no question that the evidence before the district court demonstrated that the crimes charged are serious and the defendants’ conduct on the night of their arrests could well have resulted in significantly more harm than it did. By affirming the district court’s order to release the defendants on the conditions imposed, we do not seek to minimize the severity of the offense. Rather, we recognize the constraints on our appellate review and the fact that the gravity of an offense is not the only factor to be considered by the district court in deciding whether the conditions of release are adequate to ensure the defendants will not flee and do not constitute a continuing threat to the community.

***

In addition, the burden on the defendants is one of production, not persuasion, and it is clear from the record that the defendants produced evidence from which the district court could infer that they do not pose a danger to the community….

The government’s second argument—that the district court clearly erred in granting the defendants bail—presents a closer question, but it is an argument we ultimately reject. In order to reverse on these grounds, we must not only conclude that the government showed, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mattis and Rahman present a danger to the community that could not be mitigated by the conditions of release, but also we must be left with a “definite and firm conviction” that it was a mistake for the district court to hold otherwise. See Sabhnani, 493 F.3d at 75 (citation omitted). We cannot do so on this record.

***

The government’s position that the district court committed clear error in granting bail essentially boils down to an argument that the charged criminal conduct is so extreme and aberrant that it represents the new normal for the defendants, such that no set of conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community. The acts alleged were indisputably dangerous and may have posed a serious risk to individuals in the surrounding areas. As a threshold matter, however, we must observe that the entire system for determining bail is premised on the belief that, at least to some extent, all criminal acts are aberrant. The very reason that Congress directed district courts to consider factors beyond just the severity of the offense is the recognition that an individual is more than the crime of which that individual has been accused.

***

In light of the above, while we would not necessarily have reached the same conclusion as the judges below, we cannot say that the district court committed clear error. The conditions of release contain provisions that impede defendants’ ability to engage in criminal activity, and the evidence to which the government points us and which we have otherwise gleaned from the record is inadequate to leave us with a firm conviction that the district court erred in finding those conditions sufficient to assure public safety.

Judge Jon Newman wrote in Dissent:

On the night of May 29 in Brooklyn, Appellee Urooj Rahman got out of a car driven by Appellee Colinford Mattis, lit an explosive device known as a Molotov cocktail, and tossed it through the broken window of an unoccupied police car, setting the console on fire. Parked where people were nearby, she attempted to distribute bombs to a bystander and others for their use. She then left the scene in Mattis’s car, which contained one completed bomb and components for making more bombs. Their thinking was expressed by Rahman on a videotape, about an hour before the crime: “The only way they hear us is through violence.” The majority’s decision to affirm the release of these Appellees from pretrial detention subjects the community to an unacceptable risk of danger. I respectfully dissent.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Dear God in Heaven

It’s time… it’s time

Is this what is meant by privilege? Oh, wait, that only counts when someone who is white gets treated like this in this multi-tiered justice system.

If you are of “color” your privilege to break the law in violent ways is justified.

The mayor of Seattle loved CHOP until they went after her house.

These judges will love the defendants until they throw Molotov cocktails into the judges’ cars…..

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to JOHN B. | July 1, 2020 at 10:10 pm

    $7 Million mansion from reports.

    How does a public servant afford that?

    Donations from China?

    Serving on a Ukrainian board????????

      When you are providing such singular services to the taxpayer, you deserve a little something extra now and then, don’t you think?

      None of the above. She has a rich girlfriend. Just how rich is secret, because they’re not married or official domestic partners, so the girlfriend is exempt from all disclosure requirements. But filthy rich.

      “Mr. X, may we ask you a question?
      It’s amazing, is it not,
      That the city pays you slightly less than fifty bucks a week,
      Yet you’ve purchased a private yacht?”
      “I am positive your Honor must be joking!
      Any working man can do what I have done.
      For a month or two I simply gave up smoking,
      And I put my extra pennies one by one
      “Into a little tin box,
      A little tin box
      That a little tin key unlocks.
      There is nothing unorthodox
      About a little tin box.
      In a little tin box.
      A little tin box
      That a little tin key unlocks.
      There is honor and purity,
      Lots of security,
      In a little tin box.”
      Little Tin Box, From Fiorello https://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/fiorello/littletinbox.htm

    Paul In Sweden in reply to JOHN B. | July 2, 2020 at 2:22 am

    I have said for years that parole board members should reside in the halfway houses with their spouse and children. Judges should also be held accountable(somehow)for what they unleash upon society.

Well, that seems fair.

Affirmative action bail

The two idiots should look at the bright side; now they’ve got 3 weeks experience being incarcerated so after their trial and conviction and they get a couple years more they’ll be better prepared. And I bet they get to credit three weeks toward their stretch. See win win. But Colin you gotta start getting bulked up and start with the tattoos, teardrops are always popular on the block. Urooj you look kinda pretty you better cut that nice hair off and yeah you gotta get some ink going. At least a tramp stamp.

Future co-Attorneys-General of the United States, under a Biden Administration, no doubt.

Dantzig93101 | July 1, 2020 at 10:08 pm

Please tell me that if they’re found guilty, they’ll at least be disbarred.

    In New York State, upon conviction of a felony, it’s automatic: no action need be taken by the Bar.

    No action is taken by any Barr. Or Sessions.

    JimWoo in reply to Dantzig93101. | July 1, 2020 at 11:19 pm

    They need to be made a example of. Could have killed somebody with their lethal bombs. And they were seen distributing to who knows? What if they gave one to a total nut job that kills with it? Looking forward to the trial.

“In addition, the burden on the defendants is one of production, not persuasion, and it is clear from the record that the defendants produced evidence from which the district court could infer that they do not pose a danger to the community….”
Other than rioting, looting, terrorism and arson.

The judges here, gold and brodie, are probably unaware that they are personally on the leftist mob menu. They might be a few courses into the meal, but leftism will eventually devour them, if given the chance. I don’t know for sure if these two judges are lefties, my suspicion is “yes.” If so,, their liberal privilege card is going to buy them exactly no leniency when the mob comes for them. That’s the nature of the leftist beast, it is never finished eating, even it’s own.

    n.n in reply to CKYoung. | July 1, 2020 at 11:17 pm

    Yes, you can’t trust someone who adheres to the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent religion. Once you normalized selective-child, cannibalized-child, diversity and exclusion, for social progress and secular incentives, you can’t be trusted.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to CKYoung. | July 2, 2020 at 12:30 am

    Good example:

    Corporate Thought Police Are Merciless

    Our corporate thought police have been working overtime, and from the look of it, they are only beginning.

    Mats Skogkär, a journalist and editorial writer at one of Sweden’s largest regional newspapers, Sydsvenskan, was recently demoted from editorial writer to a non-writing position for tweeting the following:

    “When you see the Left’s almost sexual excitement over the riots in the United States, over the looting, fires and violence, it also becomes easier to understand its desire to create similar conditions here with a large… segregated underclass of migrants”……

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/corporate-thought-police-are-merciless

So, how many Molotov cocktails does it require to become “a danger to the community”? Two? Five? Ten? A hundred?

There’s gotta be a line here, somewhere.

I draw it at ONE.

Diversity (i.e. color judgments) and inclusion, not limited to racism.

“defendants will not flee and do not constitute a continuing threat to the community”.

Just a lovely couple out for an evening throwing and sharing devices that may cause a horrible death to innocent by standards.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Buffalobob. | July 2, 2020 at 12:08 am

    They are Officers of the Court. Knowing this, they went on this violent rampage. They are not, therefore, ordinary citizens. I suspect, though, they will not go to trial, and will not even plea to any felony, or serve jail time. They will get some sort of misdemeanor and a temporary suspension of their licenses to practice before the bar.

      ConradCA in reply to Brave Sir Robbin. | July 2, 2020 at 10:03 pm

      OMG! Can’t Barr direct the prosecutor to seek a change in venue to someplace where the judges are sane? Trump should have the FBI seize these terrorists and ship them to Guantanamo.

This is proof idiots are being pushed through schools, and somehow they magically pass bar exams. Like obama.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to TheFineReport.com. | July 2, 2020 at 10:34 am

    As an employer, it did not take long to discover that most affirmative degrees were worthless. That was unfortunate for those who had actually earned their degree.

Maybe an example of misguided professional courtesy? The ruling read like the majority was trying to find an excuse, IMO.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | July 2, 2020 at 1:45 am

Save this list since Evil Tech is taking them down.

Here Are The Companies That Support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and Want You Dead

https://archive.vn/mG72Y

I’ll wager big money that they plead this down to a misdemeanor so they don’t get a felony record and can keep a law license.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to buck61. | July 2, 2020 at 10:37 am

    I’ll wager big money that they plead this down to a misdemeanor so they don’t get a felony record and can keep a law license.

    I’ll wager even bigger money that after the publicity has subsided on this case the liberal court will simply dismiss the charges and release these two terrorists back into society to continue their destructive ways.

    henrybowman in reply to buck61. | July 4, 2020 at 5:32 pm

    I knew those two were lawyers just by the way they were dressed. Hey, I’m not illiterate, I’ve watched “Idiocracy.”

Releasing these two plus the cuts in NYPD plus the efforts to disarm good people demonstrate that the “unacceptable risk of danger” for the common people is part of the agenda. The elites live behind private border walls in their gated communities. Aggressive Democrats and passive GOPe.

Why not release them on bail? After all, they are “mostly peaceful”.

The Friendly Grizzly | July 2, 2020 at 7:47 am

It would be a real shame if these two came to some harm while out. Maybe, like… Molotov Cocktails throuht the windows of the houses they are serving house arrest in. Not that I am advocating anything of the kind, mind you…!

Isn’t terrorism a federal offense? The Feds could arrest and prosecute these terrorists and keep them in prison until they are convicted. V

I have no idea why the court found they were unlikely to flee and that they posed no danger to the community. Based on their history, it’s likely that the minute another protest breaks out, they’ll be there front and center providing Molotov cocktails to anyone who wants them.

In what world is fire bombing a police vehicle not a danger? Just because these privileged idiots can’t master the complexity of Molotov Cocktails does not make them harmless.

Unless the fix is in, and it may be, and they know these charges are either going to go away or be reduced to a parking ticket, they would be stupid to wait for trial.

If convicted, the jail time isn’t just two years. My bet is they fly into the shadows and become the new terrorist glamor couple, giving interviews to CNN, from a safe space.

JusticeDelivered | July 2, 2020 at 10:37 pm

Someone needs to be digging into how and why these two terrorists were released, and prosecute those who broked it.

henrybowman | July 4, 2020 at 5:31 pm

“Their thinking was expressed by Rahman on a videotape, about an hour before the crime: “The only way they hear us is through violence.”

Of course, she’s 100% right, and when the conservatives finally figure this out, the left will be sorry they went there. Like “nuclear option,” “phone and a pen” and “#MeToo.”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend