At least one member of a federal three-judge appellate panel expressed skepticism regarding claims of selective prosecution against Robert Rundo, an alleged white supremacist leader. During oral arguments, federal public defender Caroline Platt defended the decision of a trial judge who dismissed indictments against Rundo and co-defendant Robert Boman. The dismissals were based on allegations that the U.S. government unfairly targeted the defendants for their involvement in the white nationalist Rise Above Movement and alleged attacks on counter-protesters at political rallies in California in 2017.
Judge Milan Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit suggested that accepting the selective prosecution argument would make it “almost impossible” for the government to pursue prosecutions in politically charged situations. This case could have significant implications for how political violence and selective prosecution claims are handled in the future.
More details are available in the original article here.