“Dude! What you are saying there is roughly an admission that some of the accused are being held without evidence to support the charge!”
No, I am not privy to all the evidence that the authorities have, I am just speculating on what else they might need to prove their case in court. For all I (or you) know, they may already have that. It certainly would not be unusual for the police or feds to have undercover agents or confidential informants already in place in these organizations to give them that kind of information.
“And if it comes out later, the timing of this new evidence, those held in the interim have a solid deprivation of rights claim.”
How so? Evidence must be disclosed in discovery. There is no deprivation of rights as long as that is done, and we certainly aren’t past that deadline yet.
“Not that “our” government is above this, but the fairy tale the government pedals to the rubes is that you can;t be held without evidence that constitutes evidence of committing a crime.”
Well, there are different standards of evidence that come into play. To arrest someone, you only need a “reasonable suspicion” that they were involved in a crime. To indict them, you need a higher standard than that, and to convict, an even higher standard. So you can certainly be held in custody for a crime if the government does not necessarily have enough evidence to convict you.
“The other point is that you’ve only attempted to justify holding the Cossacks.”
I think you mean Bandidos, and yes, I think the government’s case is strongest against them (and their support clubs), from the evidence and testimony we’ve seen so far, simply because they organized the event. So, naturally, it is going to be easier to make the case that the Bandidos planned for this to happen, since they made the arrangements that set things in motion.
However, the Cossacks and their support clubs did take some actions that don’t look good either and could be used as evidence for conspiracy on their part too. I just don’t think that is going to be as easy for the government to demonstrate that to a jury’s satisfaction.
My remark followed the contents of your previous comment, which was in the nature of the authorities needing new information.
All they really need now is a witness to flip and connect the dots by saying that was done specifically to prepare for violence against the Cossacks.THAT statement amounts to an admission the arrest is unsupported. OTOH, if they don't need anybody to flip, well then, they are obliged to make an accusation based on evidence they already have.
Supporting an arrest requires a particular accusation, with some quantum of evidence to support each element of the crime. The accusation the government put on the table is gang conspiracy. Crimes attach to individuals, so the accusation has to be in the nature of "this accused conspired to commit assault." The point I made early on was that wearing the colors and being at the scene of the shooting is not evidence that [insert name of an individual here] engaged in conspiracy.
-- Evidence must be disclosed in discovery. There is no deprivation of rights as long as that is done, and we certainly aren't past that deadline yet. --
It's a simple truism that if the government has evidence a person conspired, arresting them for conspiracy is supported. But if the government does not have evidence of conspiracy at the time of arrest, the arrest is illegal.
A deprivation occurs when there is an arrest without probable cause. If the affidavit is deficient (and this is a question of law), the accused/detained has been denied due process. The government can hide its error for awhile, from those people who lack the training and experience to be able to distinguish a sufficient affidavit from an insufficient one.
None of the affidavits accuse [insert name of individual here] of engaging in conspiracy. They invite the reader to infer some sort of amorphous gang fight conspiracy, because there is friction between the gangs. But friction and animus are not conspiracy.
Yes, I did mean Bandidos, and figured you'd figure that out, so I didn't bother to correct my mistake.
-- the Cossacks and their support clubs did take some actions that don't look good either and could be used as evidence for conspiracy on their part too. --
So far the government has not stated a coherent accusation of gang conspiracy against any individual. If you adopt a position that "club conspiracy" is enough, we're back to "why not arrest all of MS-13 for being affiliated with a criminal gang that routinely engages in violence?" A conspirator need not be at the scene of the violence to be guilty of conspiracy.