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 political rallies in California were dismissed by a federal judge who ruled they were selectively prosecuted

LOS ANGELES — For the second time in five years, federal charges against alleged members of a violent white supremacist group accused of inciting violence at political rallies in California were dismissed by a federal judge who ruled they were selectively prosecuted.

Federal prosecutors said members of the Rise Above Movement plotted to riot by using the internet to coordinate travel to political rallies and attacking protesters at rallies in Huntington Beach, Berkeley and San Bernardino in 2018. The group also posted videos to promote violence to celebrate and recruit members.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney first filed 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 selectively prosecuted while “far-left extremist groups” were not.

In his decision, Carney wrote that “there appears to be little doubt” that Rundo and Boman, or members of their group, were guilty of criminal violence. “But they cannot be singled out for prosecution because of their abhorrent statements and beliefs about those who committed the same violence with the aim of disrupting political events,” Carney wrote.

Boman was already out on bail, while Rundo was still in custody. Prosecutors requested that Rundo be held in custody pending the appeal, but Carney denied this and released him. Shortly after the ruling, prosecutors filed a notice of appeal, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Outside the courtroom, Boman became emotional and said he was ashamed of his “old antics,” according to the Times.

In his 2019 ruling, Carney said the Anti-Riot Act of 1968 was unconstitutional in part because it criminalized advocating violence when no riot or crime was imminent.

Related Post