Jan. 6 Pipe Bomber Case Plagued by DOJ Procedural Issues
Table of Contents
The case of Brian Cole, accused of being the Jan. 6 pipe bomber, is raising serious questions about potential missteps and delays by the Justice Department. Detailed analysis by Lawfare’s Roger Parloff reveals a series of apparent procedural errors in Cole’s detention, prompting speculation about the government’s handling of the case.
The core issue centers on the timeline for securing a proper grand jury indictment or a judge’s finding of probable cause. According to federal rules, individuals cannot be detained for more than 14 days without one of these legal determinations, unless there is explicit defense consent or “extraordinary circumstances.” Cole has been in custody since Dec. 4, exceeding that timeframe, and the unfolding events surrounding his case have been, as Parloff described, “odd.”
Delayed Indictment and a Missed Hearing
Cole’s initial appearance before a judge occurred on Dec. 5, with a hearing scheduled for Dec. 15. However, the judge reportedly did not mention a preliminary hearing during that initial proceeding. It appeared, according to Parloff’s reporting, that all parties assumed an indictment would be secured by Dec. 15, but that did not happen.
Instead, on Dec. 10, both sides agreed to postpone the indictment deadline and the detention hearing until Dec. 30. The defense team then proactively inquired on Dec. 24 and Dec. 27 whether the Dec. 30 hearing would serve as a preliminary hearing if an indictment remained elusive.
On Dec. 28, the government informed Cole’s attorneys that the Dec. 30 hearing would not be a preliminary hearing, and crucially, that no federal grand jury would be sitting between Dec. 16 and Jan. 5. Cole’s legal team immediately asserted they had not waived the deadline for an indictment or preliminary hearing beyond Dec. 30.
A Last-Minute Indictment – From the Wrong Court?
The DOJ seemingly recognized the looming legal problem and secured an indictment on Dec. 29, narrowly avoiding a potential violation of Cole’s rights. However, the indictment came from a superior court grand jury, not a federal one. This unusual move prompted the government to cite the case United States v. Stewart as precedent.
Parloff points out a critical distinction: in Stewart, prosecutors sought an indictment from a superior court because the grand jury had already refused to indict. This raises the question of whether the superior court indictment was a workaround to a potential rejection by a federal grand jury.
Questions of Intent
The unusual sequence of events has fueled speculation about the DOJ’s motivations. Online sleuths, known as the Capitol Hunters, have openly wondered if the delays and the unconventional indictment were deliberate attempts to “slow down or derail the Cole case.”
The circumstances surrounding the Cole indictment are undeniably unusual, and the questions raised by Parloff and others deserve careful scrutiny. The case highlights the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and raises concerns about potential political interference in a high-profile Jan. 6 investigation.
