Lawyers representing Brian Cole Jr., who is a suspect in the pipe bombing incident on January 6 in D.C., have criticized the U.S. Department of Justice for what they describe as “reckless” behavior. They contend that the DOJ is insinuating that Cole’s sister and grandmother may have played a role in the crime.
Defense attorney J. Alex Little argued this in a rebuttal to a recent 39-page memo from the DOJ opposing Cole’s release pending trial. Little claimed: “It’s an unjust deprivation of liberty.”
In a session held on January 28 before U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, the judge indicated he would make a ruling later. Previously, on January 16, Judge Ali had denied an emergency request for Cole’s release, scheduling a status hearing for February 27.
Cole was taken into custody on December 4 on charges related to allegedly placing pipe bombs near the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee buildings on January 5, 2021, within a narrow timeframe. He was subsequently indicted on two counts of explosives-related offenses.
“Rely on Innuendo”
In the January 23 memo, the DOJ referenced a text discussion Cole’s sister had with their mother on January 5, 2021, where she mentioned going to Washington, D.C., and a warning from their grandmother about potential protests.
Little countered, “The government is relying on innuendo, failing to establish a clear and ongoing threat.” He pointed out that the basis for implicating Cole’s family in any wrongdoing stemmed from commonplace family communications.
While the DOJ also mentioned that Cole had sent several text messages to his mother before January 6, it didn’t specify their content. Little argued this insinuation casts an unjust shadow over his client.
Cole’s sister clarified in an affidavit dated January 27 that her trip was work-related and entirely unrelated to the events of January 6.
“I traveled to D.C. for my job as a concert promoter,” she stated, explaining it was a matter of career networking.
Tim Lauer, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C., noted that discussions about familial custody often arise during arguments about potential release.
For nearly a month, both sides have debated whether Cole should remain in detention before the trial. The government posits that he poses a serious danger, suggesting no level of oversight would ensure public safety.
According to the DOJ, besides bomb-making materials, Cole allegedly purchased several other unrelated items, including kitchen equipment. Little asserts the pressure cooker was solely for home cooking and nothing more, noting that many people own similar appliances.
“Thousands of Americans have pressure cookers,” he added, dismissing the prosecution’s claims as baseless.
The DOJ has also stated that Cole used a beaker for a scientific experiment involving an oxidizing agent but, again, Little argues the timeline presented is inaccurate.
In an affidavit, Cole’s mother described an episode from years prior where he had attempted to create homemade “rocket fuel,” but she painted it as a harmless endeavor.
Despite defending his client’s past actions, Little remarked that the government has not shown any solid evidence that Cole would be a risk if released. He suggested that Cole is prepared to accept stringent conditions, including home detention and GPS tracking.
“What happened occurred over five years ago, and he has shown no dangerous behavior since,” he stated. “He has no criminal record and strong community ties.”
“Deprivation of Liberty”
With his willingness for strict compliance, Little insists that Cole’s continued detention is an “unjustified deprivation of liberty.”
The DOJ cited Cole’s alleged bomb-building activities, supposed admissions, and a five-year alleged evasion of law enforcement to justify his ongoing incarceration.
“There’s ample evidence that he still has an interest in bomb-making,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles R. Jones wrote in opposition to Cole’s release, emphasizing concerns for community safety.
Little challenged this narrative, arguing that it paints Cole as a mastermind, whereas the evidence implies otherwise. He noted that Cole had erased his phone data over many months, rather than immediately after the alleged incident.
“If he was trying to hide evidence, that erasure would have started right after January 5, not a year and a half later,” he argued.
Ultimately, Little maintains that Cole’s actions are consistent with an individual dealing with a disorder rather than a calculated criminal.
