Why Two Lawyers Accused Of Tossing Molotov Cocktail At NYPD Car Could Face Life In Prison

Colinford Mattis (left) and Urooj Rahman (right) were taken back into custody and await a June 23rd hearing on whether they should continue to be held in jail pre-trial for allegedly throwing a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied police vehicle.

A federal appeals court panel will hear arguments Tuesday on whether two attorneys accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at an empty police car in Brooklyn, during a protest against the police killing of George Floyd, should be held in jail until their trial. 

Urooj Rahman, 31, and Colinford Mattis, 32, were arrested in the early hours of May 30th, after a chaotic night in which protesters threw bottles at police and the NYPD responded with force. Police arrested them in a car driven by Mattis after they were observed leaving the area of the 88th precinct in Clinton Hill.

Two lower court judges let the defendants out on $250,000 bond on June 1. But they were sent back to the Metropolitan Detention Center a few days later after the government appealed. 

If the case had been prosecuted by the Brooklyn District Attorney, legal experts say they’d likely be released on bond. Only those accused of the most serious crimes, like murder, are held without bail in New York’s state courts.

Listen to Beth Fertig's report on WNYC:

But Rahman and Mattis are being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. A grand jury indicted them on seven counts each including use of explosives, arson and arson conspiracy. If convicted of all seven they could each face life in prison. A woman who allegedly threw a Molotov cocktail at a police car with four officers inside, in a separate attack that night in Brooklyn, was indicted on the same charges. No one was injured in either incident.

A potential life sentence may sound unduly harsh for a crime in which no one was hurt. Especially since Rahman and Mattis have no prior criminal record and had good legal careers. But their alleged target was a vehicle of law enforcement, which makes it a federal case, said Zachary Carter, former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District during President Bill Clinton’s administration.

“It is because it is a police car that is operated by a jurisdiction that receives federal funding,” he explained.

Though the Trump Administration has taken a hard line on law and order, Carter said he would expect any US. attorney to take this high profile case. Especially because Rahman and Mattis are lawyers. They knew they were “crossing the line into committing criminal acts, felonious acts as part of a protest,” he said. “That's what elevates this in the level of seriousness and attention.”

But Carter said the government did not have to charge them in a way that could lead to a life sentence. They're each charged with using explosives and with using an explosive device to commit a felony. “I think it is an unusually severe exercise of discretion,” Carter said.

If the case had gone to the Brooklyn District Attorney, the defendants would likely be accused of possession of a weapon and using an explosive device. Michael Cibella, former president of the Kings County Criminal Bar Association, said those charges could carry 25 years in prison. But the defense would have a bigger say in jury selection and more flexibility in plea bargaining.

“In federal court, you’re pleading to the charge and then it’s ultimately up to the judge,” he said.

Last year, the city’s district attorneys prosecuted 32 cases for third-degree arson⁠—the charge Rahman and Mattis may have faced in state court. According to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, about half were convicted of misdemeanors and felonies. Only five got jail or prison time.

The federal government argues Rahman and Mattis should be held in jail until trial because the two lower court judges that released them didn’t fully consider their danger to the community. In court papers, Richard Donoghue, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said that by “firebombing” a police car they “risked the safety of others” in the vicinity. 

Donoghue also accused them of planning the crime in advance, and of carrying materials in the car to help others throw Molotov cocktails. He argues even home confinement and electronic monitoring⁠—the original condition for release⁠—isn’t sufficient because they “demonstrated a willingness to resort to violence that creates an unacceptable risk to the community.”

Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law professor and former federal prosecutor from the Southern District of New York, said that argument has a risk in the current political climate. A panel of federal appeals court judges will hear the case on Tuesday.

When they do, he said, they could hear it as “an effort not by a U.S. attorney's office to to simply ensure that a defendant makes his appearances and no longer pose a threat to the community, but an effort directed by Washington to send some larger message about the rule of law and how those protesting police violence pose a particular danger to the community and are prone to violence themselves.”

In arguing for release, Rahman’s attorneys filed a motion saying she has “no history of violence and has lived an exemplary life characterized by service to those in need,” citing her work as an attorney in housing court and helping refugees.

The attorney representing Mattis described him as “a single father of three young children who has no criminal history, holds degrees from Princeton and NYU, and has worked at two of the city’s largest law firms.”

He lives with a sister in East New York, where he grew up, and is in the process of adopting his mother’s foster children following her death. Rahman lives with her mother in Bay Ridge, who has a medical condition, and her attorney said she helps to care for her. 

More than 50 former federal prosecutors signed a friend of the court brief arguing they should be released on bond again under the federal bail laws.

Rahman and Mattis have not yet entered pleas because they will be arraigned later this month; Mattis on June 24th and Rahman on June 29th.

This story has been updated to reflect revised arraignment information for Mattis and Rahman.

Beth Fertig is a senior reporter covering immigration, courts, and legal affairs at WNYC. You can follow her on Twitter at @bethfertig.