#Lawyers accused of tossing Molotov cocktail at NYPD vehicle eligible for bail

Enlarge Image

Colinford Mattis, left, and Urooj Rahman
U.S. Attorney’s Office via AP, File

The two Brooklyn lawyers charged with hurling a Molotov cocktail at a marked NYPD vehicle during the George Floyd protests may go free on bail as the case moves forward, a federal appeals panel affirmed Tuesday.

Colinford Mattis and Urooj Rahman both came up with the $250,000 bonds needed to secure their release earlier this month, only for federal prosecutors to appeal the offer of bail, leaving the pair locked in a state of legal limbo — and the Metropolitan Detention Center — as the arguments were weighed.

In a 2-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of granting the pair bail.

“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,” wrote Judge Peter Hall in the majority decision.

“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.”

As protests raged across the city late May 29 into early May 30, Rahman hurled a Molotov cocktail crafted out of a Bud Light bottle through the broken window of an NYPD vehicle near Fort Greene’s 88th Precinct station house, then hopped into a getaway car driven by Mattis, authorities allege.

The vehicle was empty at the time, and no cops were harmed as it went up in flames.

Rahman, 31, and Mattis, 32, were quickly arrested and charged, and face the possibility of life behind bars.

They have pleaded not guilty.

In making the initial arguments for their release on bail, attorneys for the defendants — who are themselves lawyers — noted that neither has a criminal history.

But federal prosecutors would argue in their appeal that due to the defendants’ legal work, they should have known better than most not to break the law — an argument the appeals panel rejected.

“If now a defendant’s life history and characteristics can support detention, on the one hand, because that history demonstrates the defendant engaged in bad acts, and on the other hand, because the history is so spotless and impressive that the defendant should have ‘known better,’ the inquiry into a defendant’s background may well become meaningless,” wrote Hall.

“We decline to endorse such a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ zero-sum analysis.”

In the lone dissenting opinion, Judge Jon Newman wrote that the alleged firebugs demonstrated a public danger not worth the risk of a repeat performance.

“In my view, it was unimaginable, before the event, that they would have acted as they did. But we now know that they were susceptible to being provoked to take seriously dangerous actions that night, and they remain a risk to being provoked again to take additional dangerous actions,” he wrote.

“I do not contend that it is certain they will act dangerously if released. I do not even say it is highly likely,” continued Newman. “I do say that the risk of their doing so is unacceptable, a risk no community should be asked to bear. That risk creates a danger to the community.”