United States v. O'Neill
United States District Court for the Western District of New York
144 F. Supp. 3d 428 (2015)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
The federal government (plaintiff) charged Michael O'Neill (defendant) with making and possessing multiple homemade pipe bombs, without registering them in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of tax-law statutes 26 U.S.C. §§ 5822, 5841, 5845, 5861, and 5871. O'Neill filed a motion in the District Court for the Western District of New York to overturn a magistrate judge's order to detain him pending trial. The district judge reviewed the government's evidence, which showed that emergency personnel discovered the bombs after one of them blew up in O'Neill's garage, wounding O'Neill so severely that his leg had to be amputated. Investigators found evidence that O'Neill planned to make additional bombs. The garage also contained hate-filled posters and paraphernalia that O'Neill admitted were his. O'Neill, who said he made the bombs to remove a tree stump, had lost his job due to alcohol abuse, had twice been found guilty of drunk driving, and was being treated for depression and anxiety. Due to the severity of his injuries, O'Neill argued that he could pose no danger to the public, and therefore should be released into the custody of his mother, with whom he was living at the time of his arrest.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wolford, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.