Prosecutors Say Family Ties of Lawyers Charged in Firebombing Don't Ensure Public Safety
A panel of Second Circuit judges granted prosecutors' request for an emergency stay, so Mattis and Rahman returned to jail to await their next hearing, which is set for Tuesday.
June 19, 2020 at 03:39 PM
4 minute read
Prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York delved deeper into the family dynamics of two attorneys accused of a Molotov cocktail attack on a New York City Police Department vehicle in a reply brief filed late Thursday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis, who were arrested on May 30 and indicted on charges of arson and use of explosives to commit a felony, among other offenses, are "caretakers and authority figures in the familial relationships they identify," Assistant U.S. Attorney David Kessler wrote.
While attorneys for Mattis and Rahman have argued that the pair's family commitments —Rahman cares for her aging mother, while Mattis is a foster parent of three — demonstrate strong character and are likely to encourage good behavior as they await trial on bond, Kessler argued that the family members did not prevent the previous alleged attack and were apparently unaware of it.
"It seems highly unlikely that Rahman's ailing and elderly mother or Mattis's foster children have sufficient insight into the defendants' lives or their current predicament, or the kind of moral or physical authority over the defendants that would dissuade the defendants from further crimes," Kessler wrote.
Mattis and Rahman were released to home confinement with electronic monitoring and a $250,000 bond a few days after their arrests, but prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York immediately appealed U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie's ruling to the Second Circuit, arguing that Mattis and Rahman presented a safety risk while protests were ongoing in the city.
A panel of Second Circuit judges granted prosecutors' request for an emergency stay, so Mattis and Rahman returned to jail to await their next hearing, which is set for Tuesday before Judges Jon Newman, Peter Hall and Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit.
The case has attracted attention from across the legal community, with a group of 56 former federal prosecutors filing an amicus brief this week urging the Second Circuit to uphold Brodie's ruling and a growing list of more than 850 current and former students, organizations, faculty and staff at New York University School of Law calling for the charges to be dropped.
Mattis is a graduate of NYU Law, and at the time of the alleged attack, he was an associate at Pryor Cashman on furlough due to the pandemic. The firm has since suspended him pending the outcome of the criminal case. Rahman, who graduated from Fordham University School of Law, worked as a tenants' attorney in Bronx Housing Court until her arrest.
In the amicus brief, the former federal prosecutors argued that the government's argument, if adopted, would change existing bail practice. The preexisting circumstances of a defendant's life are routinely considered in bail proceedings, they argued, even though those circumstances typically failed to prevent the alleged offense.
In response, Kessler argued that he had made a more specific argument.
"The government's point is simply that in this case, under these circumstances, these preexisting familial relationships should give the Court little comfort that the defendants will not engage in further criminal activity," he wrote.
Bracewell partner Paul Shechtman, who is representing Rahman, said he hopes the appellate court recognizes that Brodie's decision to approve the bond package was reasonable.
"I hope that our brief and a compelling amicus brief will persuade a distinguished panel of the Court of Appeals that the bail package imposed below was entirely reasonable," he said.
Mattis' attorney Sabrina Shroff said prosecutors' arguments and their interpretation of the Bail Reform Act of 1984 are not in keeping with case law.
"The government's reading of the statute caused concern to individuals with deep law enforcement experience and we share their concern as raised in the amicus brief," she said.
READ MORE:
2nd Circuit Weighs Whether 2 Lawyers Charged in Molotov Cocktail Attack Can Remain at Home
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'You Became a Corrupt Politician': Judge Gives Prison Time to Former Sen. Robert Menendez for Corruption Conviction
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
- 2Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, says NJ Supreme Court
- 3DC Lawsuits Seek to Prevent Mass Firings and Public Naming of FBI Agents
- 4Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
- 5Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250