Several hours behind, but: A judge explained his ruling last week to keep Scott Fairlamb — charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6 — in jail.
"...the defendant’s history of punching people in the face suggests that he may punch people in the face again"
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2069…
"...the defendant’s history of punching people in the face suggests that he may punch people in the face again"
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2069…
Judge Lamberth writes that Fairlamb fits the profile of a Jan. 6 defendant warranting detention that the DC Circuit had in mind when it wrote the Munchel opinion, which set the bar higher for pretrial detention for people not charged with specific acts of violence
Lamberth also not buying a "puffery" arg re: Fairlamb's pre-Jan. 6 social media posts.
"He said it was time to 'put up or shut up' and then he, as promised, put up, assaulting a police officer. When a person follows through on a threat, his words cannot be taken as hyperbolic."
"He said it was time to 'put up or shut up' and then he, as promised, put up, assaulting a police officer. When a person follows through on a threat, his words cannot be taken as hyperbolic."
Meanwhile, in another Jan. 6 case, a judge granted pretrial release to Michael Lopatic, also charged with assaulting police. But unlike Fairlamb, Lopatic isn't facing counts that qualify as a "crime of violence," which made it harder for DOJ to meet the standard for detention
The charge of "Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain Officers" on its own isn't defined as a "crime of violence," so the govt had to show Lopatic posed a serious risk of flight or obstructing the case, and the judge concluded the govt failed to do so
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
