Dominic Pezzola - DETAINED pending Trial

Order just uploaded to his docket and boy it’s it one well written Memorandum- the Court took a part Pezzola’s arguments brick by brick

By way of background Feb 12th & March 1st

The long awaited ruling on Defendant Pezzola’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release just hit the docket

I am pulling the Memorandum down now but this is the Order - he’s detained pending trial - and will likely file an Appeal of tonight’s ruling

Order of Detention Pending Trial
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/doc1/04518394676 or via my public drive -it’s pretty standard form but this is why one must read the concurrently filed Memorandum

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Via ECF - or via my Public Drive -trust me on this take the time to read the twenty-one page Memoranda. It is likely one of the most well written and methodically rationalized Court filings I’ve read in a long time.

“The Grand Jury has charged him with eleven counts stemming from this assault, including conspiracy to interfere with law enforcement officers engaged in protecting the Capitol and its grounds, robbery of the riot shield from a police officer, and obstruction of an official proceeding before Congress. A magistrate judge ordered Pezzola held until trial, finding that no condition or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community if he were released. This Court agrees and will order him detained for substantially the same reasons. Thus, his motion for release will be denied.”

I understand it’s difficult to fully understand when I casually say “prior acts yo” - it’s a flippant statement. Which succinctly describes the Court’s discretion- meaning that a “defendant’s prior acts” can and often are factored in to both PreTrial Detention and ultimately sentencing… And sure I may have gotten some things wrong in the past but on this the “prior acts” I knew that the Government’s primary argument of Pezzola’s conduct prior to Jan 6th would play a factor in determining PreTrial Detention, case in point page 2 of the Memorandum…

Moving on to page 3 the Court agrees and points to the Government’s proffer of Pezzola’s prior acts and the prominence he touted as a “Proud Boy 2nd” - again this isn’t a theoretical argument- it is based on the body of growing facts in the current criminal case

Moving on to pages 4 & 5 -the Judge methodically goes through the actions of Pezzola on Jan 6th -and it’s a point by point recitation of what the Government previously argued

Most importantly the Court gives serious credence to what the Government proffered concerning Pezzola and what appears to be an “ear piece” and how the current evidence provided certainly points to Pezzola and other Proud Boys using radio communications to communicate and coordinate with each other

But in the end the humble-bragging ended up sealing Pezzola’s detention because the Government later proffered that a (government) witness stated that Pezzola “bragged” about the invasion in our Capitol and (more importantly) Pezzola’s acknowledged that “the mission was completed” the mission being delaying Congress’ certification of the Electoral College Ballots

Furthermore on page 6 - the Court reaffirmed the Government’s previous position - that the witness in question;

“According to this witness, whom the government proffers is not the subject of any law enforcement investigation…”

Now this little fact I actually overlooked - more broadly most of us knew that Pezzola changed his behavior but the interesting fact is the Government proffered an additional witness - setting aside the fact that Pezzola drastically changed his appearance and only turned himself in once Federal Law Enforcement started knocking on his neighbors and relatives doors - certainly paints a very different picture that Pezzola - who tried to convince the Court he immediately turned himself in…

“The government proffers that another witness has informed them that Pezzola briefly stayed at his home in Buffalo, New York…

18 U.S.C. §§ 3141–3156

¹

- mandates detention - specifically: “Congress limited pretrial detention of persons who are presumed innocent to a subset of defendants charged with crimes that are ‘the most serious’ compared to other federal offenses.” United States v. Singleton, 182 F.3d 7, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1999)

²

(quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987))

³

.

Again the Bail Reform Act

⁴

gives very precise criterion for Courts to use to determine if PreTrial Detention is warranted - specifically the Court references:

“offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18, United States Code, for which a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years or more is prescribed.” Id. § 3142(e)(3)(C).

Of the twenty-one page Memorandum- this particular paragraph completely encapsulates how Defendant Pezzola failed to provide the court with clear and convincing to rebuttals of what the Government proffered:

The footnotes - on page 14 are actually pretty important - because in both instances the Defendant did not contest the characterization or the proffered evidence by the Government. And that actually matters as it relates to rebuttal, or lack thereof.

On page 15 the Court makes a few very important distinctions and fully explains the gravity of Pezzola’s criminal behavior. By far one of the most eloquent Memorandums I’ve had the pleasure of reading

Whispers footnote on page 18 - go read it. Also read page 19 - the Court hammers Pezzola and his request to be released to his “common law wife” —stating in part he planned and communicated with Proud Boys while living with his “Common law wife” Memorandum found on my Public Drive

Also unfortunately I’m going to be super slammed at work on the 17th - which means I’ll likely be unavailable for most of the day -so (in my best mom voice) make smart choices.

I also have a follow up interview with Investigators involving the “other” matter - certain issues need to be shored up prior to filing a civil matter. Particularly from a litigation standpoint. It is always best to ensure a civil case won’t adversely impact the ongoing criminal investigations or cases.

-Filey

1. 18 U.S.C. §§3141-3156 - Government Printing Office, last visited March 16, 2021 -https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2016-title18/pdf/USCODE-2016-title18-partII-chap207-sec3156.pdf

2. United States v. Singleton, 182 F.3d 7, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1999) or via WestLaw

3. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987) via LexisNexis or via Justia

4. B.R.A, via Federal Judicial Center 2012 Report is one of the most comprehensive documents to fully understand the construct of the B.R.A.