Ahead of alleged Jan. 6 pipe bomber’s Tuesday court appearance, attorneys urge judge to release him before trial
Prince William County police seal the street in front of the home of suspected Jan. 6, 2021, pipe bomber on Dec. 4, 2025, in Woodbridge, Virginia. (Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Attorneys for the Virginia man charged with planting pipe bombs outside of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee headquarters the night before the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol are urging a judge to release him pending trial, arguing the government has presented no evidence that shows he poses a danger to the general public.
In a late-night filing on Monday, suspect Brian Cole Jr.’s attorneys said the “government-induced excitement” around Cole’s arrest earlier this month is both premature and potentially in violation of local court rules.
The filing came ahead of Cole’s scheduled court appearance on Tuesday afternoon for a detention hearing.
Cole, of Virginia, was arrested by federal authorities earlier this month following a massive probe that had stymied investigators for almost five years. He appeared in court on Dec. 5, where a judge detailed the two charges he currently faces. The charges carry a maximum sentence of up to 30 years if he is convicted.
Cole, who has not entered a plea, allegedly told investigators in a lengthy confession that he wasn’t targeting the joint session of Congress that was convening to certify former President Joe Biden’s election win, according to previous court filing from the Department of Justice.
After Cole saw himself on the news in videos released by the FBI seeking tips on his identity, he said in the interview that he discarded all of his bomb-making materials at a nearby dump and said he never told anyone about his actions in the nearly five years since Jan. 6, according to the filing. The filing also notes that over the past years he appeared to wipe data from his personal cellphone “nearly one thousand times.”
Prosecutors included the alleged details of Cole’s confession in a filing urging a judge to keep him detained pending trial, arguing his alleged actions and choice of the DNC and RNC as targets “demonstrates the extreme and deeply dangerous nature of his conduct.”
In their Monday filing, Cole’s attorneys specifically pointed to statements made by D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro in an exclusive interview with ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas following their client’s arrest in which they argue she improperly commented on the merits of the government’s case.
They further claim that the government’s inclusion of Cole’s alleged confession to planting the bombs in their detention memo Sunday may have also violated his rights.
While Cole’s attorneys didn’t specifically deny any of the allegations put forward by the government about Cole’s conduct, they used their filing Monday to dispute that prosecutors have made any clear showing he presents a danger to the public.
According to the filing, Cole has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder as well as obsessive compulsive disorder and has no criminal history.
His attorneys said he would submit to house arrest and wearing an ankle monitor if required, though they argue the government hasn’t proven he poses any risk of fleeing prosecution.
In this Sept. 20, 2013, file photo, Ghislaine Maxwell attends an event in New York. Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images, FILE
(WASHINGTON) — Ghislaine Maxwell, the convicted co-conspirator of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, on Wednesday asked a federal court to vacate or correct her conviction and 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking of minors and other offenses — a move that could complicate the release of the Epstein files as mandated by a new law.
Maxwell has exhausted all of her direct appeals, but filed a petition which contends “substantial new evidence has emerged” demonstrating she did not receive a fair trial, according to Maxwell’s filing in federal court in New York.
“This newly available evidence — derived from litigation against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, various financial institutions, and the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as from sworn depositions, released records, and other verified sources–shows that exculpatory information was withheld, false testimony presented, and material facts misrepresented to the jury and the Court,” Maxwell wrote in a habeas petition, which she filed “pro se” — without an attorney.
The petition alleges nine separate grounds — including juror misconduct and government suppression of evidence — for Maxwell’s contention that constitutional violations undermined the integrity of her 2021 trial.
“In the light of the full evidentiary record, no reasonable juror would have convicted her. Accordingly, she seeks vacatur of her conviction, an evidentiary hearing, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate and justice requires,” Maxwell wrote in the 50-page filing, which was submitted to the court in seven separately scanned sections.
There are two gaps in the page numbers, which could be the result of an editing or filing error. After the documents first posted on the electronic case docket Wednesday afternoon, they were briefly taken down before appearing again. Maxwell’s handwritten signature appears at the end of the petition.
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined to comment on Maxwell’s court filing.
Maxwell, 63, was convicted in 2021 — after a three-week trial in Manhattan federal court — of five felonies, including conspiracy, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity and sex trafficking of a minor. A higher court rejected her post-trial appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to take up her case.
Many of the issues raised in Maxwell’s petition were addressed either at her trial or by the appellate court. She contends, however, that information and evidence previously unavailable to her and her attorneys has since emerged that should render her conviction “invalid, unsafe, and infirm.”
To prevail in a habeas petition, Maxwell would need to show that serious constitutional violations occurred during her trial or sentencing, or that significant new evidence has emerged demonstrating her innocence. A successful habeas petition could result in a new trial or a reduction of her sentence.
Maxwell’s last-ditch effort for relief from the courts comes as the Justice Department faces a Friday deadline to publicly disclose its investigative files on Epstein and Maxwell in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump last month.
Maxwell’s newly filed petition presents a possible wrinkle in the long-running controversy. The Epstein Files Transparency Act contains exemptions permitting Attorney General Pam Bondi to withhold certain records if their publication could jeopardize active criminal investigations or prosecutions.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer granted a DOJ motion to lift restrictions on grand jury transcripts and other nonpublic records from the case, citing the requirement of the newly passed legislation. An attorney for Maxwell had argued that public disclosure of those materials would impact her ability to get a fair retrial if she were to succeed in her bid for a new trial.
“Releasing the grand jury materials from her case, which contain untested and unproven allegations, would create undue prejudice so severe that it would foreclose the possibility of a fair retrial should Ms. Maxwell’s habeas petition succeed,” the lawyers wrote.
Epstein, the wealthy financier and convicted sex offender, died by suicide in a New York jail in 2019.
Maxwell’s habeas submission cites to than 140 exhibits, including post-trial news articles and excerpts from podcasts, books and documentaries about the case in support of her claims of juror misconduct, suppression of evidence and allegedly improper coordination between prosecutors and attorneys for alleged victims. As of Wednesday afternoon, the exhibits had not yet been posted on the electronic docket of the case.
Maxwell devotes a substantial portion of her petition to a claim that the government failed to disclose to her defense team the prior state grand jury testimony of a former Palm Beach police officer who participated in a search of Epstein’s Florida home in 2005.
Retired officer Gregory Parkinson was on the stand for one of the Maxwell trial’s more dramatic moments, when prosecutors carried into the courtroom a green massage table that Parkinson testified was the same one he removed from a bathroom in Epstein’s seaside home following the execution of a search warrant.
Prosecutors said a manufacturer’s label indicating the table was made in California constituted proof of an interstate nexus to the sex-trafficking of a minor — the witness identified at trial as “Carolyn” — which was a critical element of the two most serious charges against Maxwell.
“So when Carolyn … was abused on a massage table that was manufactured in California, that proves that there was at least a minimal effect on interstate commerce, which is all that’s required for this count,” prosecutor Allison Moe said during closing arguments.
But Maxwell contends in her habeas petition that her lack of access to the state grand jury transcripts during her trial deprived her attorneys of the ability to cross-examine the retired officer about his previous sworn testimony. What Parkinson said in 2006, Maxwell argues, “conflicted with his trial testimony” about where the massage table was found and “undermined” the government’s assertions about a critical piece of evidence.
Parkinson’s testimony before the state grand jury in 2006 was made public in 2024 as a result of a lawsuit by the Palm Beach Post and a new state law specifically crafted to allow for the disclosure of the transcripts.
Earlier this year, Maxwell was transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp for women in Texas. That switch occurred less than two weeks after an unusual meeting in July between Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as personal counsel to President Trump.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has asked the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to issue an emergency stay of a judge’s ruling Thursday ordering the administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by today.
Lawyers for the Department of Justice argue that the district court ruling makes a “mockery of the separation of powers.”
“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend. Courts are charged with enforcing the law, but the law is explicit that SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations,” the DOJ said in its filing.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell, in his ruling Thursday, ordered the Trump administration to fully fund SNAP for the month of November by Friday.
Last week McConnell ordered the government to use emergency funds to pay for SNAP in time for the Nov. 1 payments to be made — but the administration committed to only partially funding the program, saying they had to save the additional funds for child nutrition programs.
McConnell, in his Thursday ruling ordering SNAP to be fully funded, said the government’s argument that it did not want to tap into emergency funds in order to protect child nutrition programs was implausible, and accused the Trump administration of “erroneously and intentionally” conflating the funding.
“People have gone without for too long, not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable,” the judge said.
The government has asked the circuit court to allow U.S. Department of Agriculture, which operates SNAP, to continue with the partial payment of SNAP and to “not compel the agency to transfer billions of dollars from another safety net program with no certainty of their replenishment.”
McConnell hemself denied a request from the government to stay his own decision, saying, “The request for a stay of this decision, either a stay or an administration stay, is denied. People have gone without for too long. Not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable.”
The judge, in his order Thursday, directly rebuked President Donald Trump for stating “his intent to defy” a court order when Trump said earlier this week that SNAP will not be funded until the government reopens from the ongoing government shutdown.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters and members of the media at Mar-a-Lago on February 1, 2026 in Palm Beach, Florida. Al Drago/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday sentenced Ryan Routh to spend the rest of his life in prison for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump on his Florida golf course in September 2024.
Prosecutors argued that Routh, 60, should get a life sentence after a jury last year convicted him on five counts for allegedly plotting “painstakingly to kill President Trump, and [taking] significant steps toward making that happen.”
“Routh’s crimes undeniably warrant a life sentence — he took steps over the course of months to assassinate a major presidential candidate, demonstrated the will to kill anybody in the way, and has since expressed neither regret nor remorse to his victims,” prosecutors argued in a court filing.
After a two-and-a-half-week trial in September, a jury quickly found Routh guilty on five felony counts, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate and assaulting a federal officer.
Routh allegedly hid in the bushes of the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach and pointed a military-grade SKS rifle towards Trump and a Secret Service agent.
“Routh’s crimes of conviction reflect careful plotting, extensive premeditation, and a cowardly disregard for human life,” prosecutors wrote. “Routh’s motive for his crimes was unconscionable – preventing the American people from electing the candidate of their choice for President. Routh’s gloss on his crimes has always been that anything he may have done was justified by events in Ukraine or American domestic politics.”
Routh represented himself at trial and attempted to argue that he never intended to harm Trump or the Secret Service agent, framing his actions as a form of protest against the president’s policies. After he was found guilty, he attempted to harm himself in front of the jury by stabbing himself with a pen.
Since his conviction, Routh was appointed an attorney and has requested a 27-year sentence that would allow him to “experience freedom again as opposed to dying in prison.” His lawyer argued that Routh could not have a fair trial because he represented himself, even though Routh made that decision after repeated warnings about the potential consequences.
“Defendant recognizes that he was found guilty by the jury but asserts that the jury was misled by his inability to effectively confront witnesses, use exhibits, or affirmatively introduce impeachment evidence designed to prove his lack of intent to cause injury to anyone,” his defense lawyer wrote.
Routh had attempted to bolster his push for a lighter sentence by submitting multiple letters from friends attesting to his character and undergoing a psychiatric examination, which suggested he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and bipolar II disorder.
“Ryan has already shown, through his actions, that he is an asset to his community, not a threat. He deserves the chance to one day return home, where he can continue to be a loving father, partner, and a peaceful, contributing member of society,” wrote Darya Trotsenko, a Kyiv resident who said she met Routh when he attempted to volunteer to support Ukraine’s defense.
But prosecutors argued that Routh continues to show little remorse for his actions, pointing to recent writings in which he referenced an earlier attempt on Trump’s life and wrote, “I hate our dictator missed the trial, can my appeal be heard in 30 years when he is gone.”
In another court filing, Routh suggested he prefers that Trump personally punish him for his actions.
“If the President wished to pummel the defendant just for good measure, put on the handcuffs and shackles and give it your worst. No cameras, no complaints, no charges/charges. Just good fun. Don’t be a p—-. (Can I say p—- or coward – sorry),” Routh wrote.
Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, dismissed the criminal case against the president in 2024 related to his handling of classified documents. Routh unsuccessfully attempted to have Cannon removed from the case by arguing her appointment by Trump is a conflict of interest.
