On June 10, eight pro-Palestine activists — six with ties to the University of Michigan — were detained by the FBI. The federal government is charging them with eight counts of conspiracy to transmit threats in interstate and foreign commerce, one count of witness tampering and one count of destruction of property to prevent seizure.
On June 12, the bond hearings for four of the defendants — Zainab Hakim, Paige Feyock, Colin Weger and Jonathan Zou — occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. U.S. Magistrate Judge Anthony Patti presided over the case, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Maggie Smith served as the lead courtroom prosecutor during the proceedings.
At any bond hearing, the prosecution’s role is to argue that the defendants are either flight risks or a danger to the community. Smith attempted to establish that the defendants were both of these things. However, Judge Patti ultimately ruled that all four defendants should be released on a $10,000 unsecured bond, with varying stipulations attached.
This Editorial Board attended the hearing and analyzed the subsequent court transcripts. We found that while both the prosecution and defense stated that global affairs should not play a role in the hearing, the proceedings were rife with charged political statements. Many of these were inflammatory, falsely framing the entire pro-Palestine movement as anti-American.
The hearing began with the prosecutor laying out the evidence against the defendants, then making her arguments as to why these individuals should not be released on bond. She reiterated a lot of the information included in the indictment, but also called attention to other details, including the defendants’ political beliefs.
“They believe that the government is fascist and have absolutely no respect for the law that they don’t believe in. They believe we are fascists, we are colonialists and the law just does not apply to them.”
The defendants’ views on the government and colonialism are irrelevant in Smith’s role as prosecutor given that they provide no evidence for determining flight risk or potential danger. Yet Smith repeatedly mentioned them, signifying she believed those who share similar beliefs — though it is their first amendment right — would pose a danger to the public.
This unwarranted commentary extended even further.
A written character testimony was provided for Zou, in which a University professor corroborated their diligence and responsibility in a classroom setting. Rather than focusing on the content of the testimony, Smith noted the professor’s area of study: colonialism and imperialism. She went on to suggest that Zou had been indoctrinated after taking the professor’s course.
Claiming course material about the United States’ extensive history of imperialism would be a negative influence on students is a problem in and of itself.
But more importantly, commenting on the testimony in this way was an irrelevant addition to what was supposed to be a character witness — not an evaluation of the professor or defendant’s political beliefs. Instead of taking the statement for what it was, Smith decided to stake an abrasively political claim.
Smith’s comment seems to also imply that any criticism of the U.S. government — such as an examination of its colonialist past — would play a role in establishing an individual’s flight risk or danger to the community. Critiques of the government are a vital part of democracy, not inherent cause for concern in a court of law.
Smith’s commentary extended beyond the indicted to those who came to court to support them.
“The fact that the protesters are here and there’s many in the courtroom, these are not supporters for following the court’s orders. These are supporters who have the same groupthink mentality.”
“And you combine that with a number of people who are willing to drop everything and show up at a courthouse for a case they’ve likely never read the indictment for should be of concern to this court.”
The claims she made about these attendees were replete with assumptive generalizations — all of them do not believe in following orders, all are members of groupthink and all have probably never read the case indictment.
Smith also associated the supporters with the ideation of groupthink — a term that suggests conformity and concurrence without proper logic or reasoning. Though only a select few are being tried, Smith made a blanket statement about the entire movement the defendants support and associate with. This was an intentional effort at tying together all of those who participate in pro-Palestine protests — most of which have been peaceful — with the defendants’ alleged crimes.
These statements were completely irrelevant to the purpose of a bond hearing. While Smith’s primary objective should have been to establish flight risk for the defendants, she chose to target others in the courtroom that day. The supporters were not charged or on trial, yet Smith drew substantial attention to their support for the defendants and their cause.
Judge Patti found this unrelated — pushing back on Smith’s arguments. He affirmed that the attendees were obeying all orders and were merely sitting quietly in support.
Moving into the future, there is no date set for trial, but the bond hearing has set a precedent for how the prosecution — and by extension the federal government — is planning to handle the case. Rather than sticking to facts and legal analysis, they are also utilizing political controversy around a global issue to misconstrue the defendants and their alleged actions.
This is no longer about simply charging the defendants; it’s a case about which political views are acceptable and the length to which all citizens are able to criticize the government. The manner in which the prosecution portrayed the defendants spans beyond the courtroom — it has detrimental effects for all protesters and the pro-Palestine movement.
This editorial represents the opinion of The Michigan Daily’s Summer Editorial Board. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor, please send your submission to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
