Charges against alleged white supremacists are tossed by a California judge for the second time
For the second time in five years, federal charges against alleged members of a violent white supremacist group accused of inciting violence at California political rallies were dismissed by a federal judge who found they were selectively prosecuted.
Federal prosecutors said members of the Rise Above Movement conspired to riot by using the internet to coordinate traveling to political rallies and attacking demonstrators at gatherings in Huntington Beach, Berkeley and San Bernardino in 2018. The group also posted videos to celebrate violence and recruit members.
U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney first tossed the charges against Robert Rundo and Robert Boman in June 2019. The two were charged with conspiracy to violate the Anti-Riot Act and rioting.
On Wednesday, Carney again granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, agreeing that Rundo and Boman were being selectively prosecuted while “far-left extremist groups” were not.
So did they break the law? Because last I heard that is the job of a judge. To run Court proceedings, not to see if the DA was prosecuting others... Yeah judge I killed that dude, but the gangs kill people all the time and I don't see them here so you should dismiss the case.
Selective prosecution is a cause for dismissal. It was the motion argued and sustained here. The judge is indeed doing their job.
Is it? Where is the precedent? Cause a lot of cases are going to be dismissed if that is the case
In United States v. Armstrong (1996), the Supreme Court ruled the Attorney General and United States Attorneys "retain 'broad discretion' to enforce the Nation's criminal laws"[4] and that "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties."[5] Therefore, the defendant must present "clear evidence to the contrary",[5] which demonstrates "the federal prosecutorial policy 'had a discriminatory effect and that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.'"[6]
So did they present clear evidence to the contrary?