In a 22-page decision that references murder cases dating back to the 16th century, Cogan acknowledged the \u201cabsurdity\u201d of his ruling but pointed out that because the federal first-degree murder statute allows for unintentional and accidental killings, murder can\u2019t strictly be categorized as an act of violence.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not just a matter of semantics.<\/p>\n
The distinction means two of the six charges against accused terrorist<\/a> Fawaz Ould Ahmed Ould Ahemeid, brandishing and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence and causing death by firearm during a crime of violence, must be dismissed, Cogan ruled.<\/p>\n Federal courts have been litigating what is and isn\u2019t a \u201ccrime of violence\u201d for decades and often take what\u2019s called a \u201ccategorical\u201d approach \u2014 meaning an offense either is, or isn\u2019t a crime of violence, regardless of the individual facts of the case, explained criminal defense attorney Kenneth White, a former federal prosecutor who writes about legal issues.<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cIn deciding whether a crime is a \u2018crime of violence,\u2019 federal courts focus on whether the crime NECESSARILY involves the use of force against another person,\u201d White, using all-caps for emphasis, said in a written exchange with The News. \u201cIf the elements of a statute CAN be satisfied by nonviolent conduct, then it\u2019s not a crime of violence, even if it MIGHT ALSO be satisfied by violence.\u201d<\/p>\n The law defining first-degree murder falls under that \u201ccategorical approach,\u201d according to Cogan \u2014 if someone can be charged with first-degree murder for a nonviolent act, then first-degree murder can\u2019t be called an act of violence.<\/p>\n \u201cIt will be no comfort to the family or friends of the victim when they learn that this was somehow not a \u2018crime of violence\u2019 because, as a legal technicality, the Supreme Court\u2019s \u2018categorical approach\u2019 governs the issue,\u201d Cogan ruled.<\/p>\n The sticking point, according to Cogan, is that a participant in a felony that results in death can be charged with murder, even if that participant had no direct role in that death and the death was unintended or accidental.<\/p>\n And even though the suspect is accused of plotting the hotel attack and a second terrorist strike, and of personally killing five people in a third attack, the first-degree murder law he\u2019s charged under also covers accidental, presumably non-violent deaths.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are not dealing with common sense here, but with the law, and with a conclusion that is \u2018better explained by history than by logic,’\u201d Cogan wrote\u00a0 \u2014 directly quoting a federal appeals\u2019 court\u2019s commentary on a 2008 Supreme Court ruling that a man\u2019s past DUI crimes couldn\u2019t be counted as \u201ccrimes of violence\u201d when calculating his sentence in a gun case.<\/p>\n Cogan\u2019s ruling includes an entire section on \u201cThe History of Murder,\u201d referencing a case from 1541 where a British noble named Lord Dacres and a second man trespassed on land to hunt. The two men got separated and unbeknown to Lord Dacres the second man killed someone while resisting arrest. Both men were convicted of murder.<\/p>\n \u201cLord Dacres\u2019 conviction was later held unlawful, but by then he had already been executed,\u201d Cogan wrote.<\/p>\n His ruling mirrors the reasoning by Manhattan Federal Court Judge Margaret Garnett last month barring the government from seeking the death penalty against accused CEO-killer Luigi Mangione because stalking isn\u2019t necessarily a crime of violence.<\/a><\/p>\n Cogan appears to be nudging the Supreme Court to change its approach to determining what is and isn\u2019t considered a crime of violence.<\/p>\n \u201cPerhaps it is necessary for this case, Mangione, and others in a similar vein to demonstrate this counterintuitive reasoning in order to signal that a different approach is warranted,\u201d wrote Cogan, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2006.<\/p>\n Federal prosecutors are weighing whether they\u2019ll appeal Cogan\u2019s ruling, they said in a court filing Feb. 6.<\/p>\n![\"Malian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-498041890.jpg\")
Malian soldiers and special forces stand guard at the entrance the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako on November 20, 2015. (HABIBOU KOUYATE\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n![\"Malian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-498006934.jpg\")
Malian troops take position outside the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako on November 20, 2015. (HABIBOU KOUYATE\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-498138792.jpg\")
A room at the Radisson Blu hotel on November 21, 2015, the day after the deadly jihadist siege at the luxury hotel in the capital Bamako. (HABIBOU KOUYATE\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n![\"Malian](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-498036230.jpg\")
Malian security forces evacuate a man from an area surrounding the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako on November 20, 2015. (HABIBOU KOUYATE\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/GettyImages-498811084.jpg\")
A picture taken on November 26, 2015 shows the coffins of three Chinese nationals, killed in an attack at the Radisson Blu hotel, during their funeral ceremony, in Bamako. (HABIBOU KOUYATE\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/p>\n