Colinford Mattis, left, and Urooj Rahman.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments Friday on whether two attorneys accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied New York City Police Department vehicle during protests in Brooklyn early Saturday can remain out of jail, each confined to their homes with electronic monitoring and a $250,000 bond.

Urooj Rahman, a tenants' attorney in Bronx Housing Court, is accused of throwing the Molotov cocktail in Fort Greene after emerging from a van driven by Colinford Mattis, who has been suspended from his job as an associate at Pryor Cashman pending the outcome of the criminal proceeding.

Rahman and Mattis traveled home from Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center Monday evening after U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Gold and U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie approved the conditions of their release.

Prosecutors appealed to the Second Circuit for an emergency stay of Rahman and Mattis' release, arguing that they presented a particular danger to the community amid ongoing protests in Brooklyn and across the city. A second Molotov cocktail and materials to make more were found in Mattis' van, prosecutors said, and Rahman is accused of offering a completed device to other protesters.

"Instead of using their privileged positions to change society lawfully, they used a Molotov cocktail and sought to incite others to adopt their violent ways," prosecutors wrote in a detention memo addressed to Gold.

During arguments Friday, Assistant U.S. Attorney David Kessler of the Eastern District of New York argued that electronic monitoring and home confinement are not the same thing as a physical "wall" or "tether" necessary to keep the community safe from Mattis and Rahman.

Rahman's attorney, Paul Shechtman, a partner at Bracewell, emphasized that his client has followed all the conditions of her home confinement for several days, even as protests continued in the area. Neither Rahman nor Mattis had ever been arrested before, their lawyers said.

"This was lawless, this was stupid, this was two people swept up in the moment," Shechtman said, adding that the alleged action involved "no real planning" or membership in any organized group. All the items involved in the alleged offense could be purchased at a gas station convenience store, Shechtman argued.

In response to questions from Second Circuit Judge William Nardini about whether the magistrate and district judges considered the fact that the charge against Mattis and Rahman carries a presumption of detention, Kessler argued that Brodie did not specifically address the presumption.

Mattis' attorney, Sabrina Shroff, argued that the judges did address the presumption, though they used different language.

Shroff pointed to Gold's comments in response to arguments from prosecutors that Mattis acted irrationally, based on how unusual the alleged conduct would be for someone with his education and career.

"When you say that you question his rationality … I just want to make sure that I am understanding the scope of your argument and asking you whether there are other aspects of his background or the government's information about him that you're prepared to put on this record other than his behavior on the night in question that demonstrates his lack of attention to incentives, rewards and punishment," Gold said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ian Richardson said he had no other examples at the time of arguments Monday.

READ MORE:

Pryor Cashman Associate Suspended Without Pay in Wake of Arrest in Firebombing Incident

US Judge Orders Release of Furloughed Pryor Cashman Associate on $250,000 Bond in Molotov Cocktail Case

Furloughed Pryor Cashman Associate Charged With Helping Molotov Cocktail Attack During Brooklyn Protests