PLEASE NOTE: I am not a legal expert. Please rely on the court documents, public records, and other available resources for the facts surrounding the case and other information regarding Luke Wenke’s legal proceedings.

In late March, accused cyberstalker Luke Wenke’s federal public defender filed a motion seeking a new bail hearing for Wenke. The defense hopes that the judge overseeing the case will set a reasonable bail amount, thereby enabling Luke Weke to secure his freedom pending the outcome of his case.

The prosecution, thank goodness, opposes the motion and wants Luke Wenke to remain in pretrial detention without bail. In plain terms, the prosecutors argue that Wenke hasn’t presented any new, meaningful information that would justify revisiting the decision to keep him detained before trial. More specifically, the prosecution argues that:

• Wenke cites the recent USA v. Luigi Mangione decision that cyberstalking is not a “crime of violence” under a completely different law dealing with gun charges. The government stresses that Mangione has nothing to do with the Bail Reform Act, which is the law that governs detention hearings. The words “bail” or “detention” don’t appear anywhere in that decision. Because of that, the government says it cannot be used to reopen Wenke’s hearing.

• Cyberstalking is a crime of violence under the Bail Reform Act because it poses a substantial risk of physical force, thereby qualifying as a valid reason to detain a defendant. The prosecution also mentions that Congress itself treated cyberstalking as a crime of violence during the lawmaking process.

• Even if Luke Wenke were right, it wouldn’t change anything. In what might be the government’s most compelling argument against reopening Luke Wenke’s bail hearing, the prosecution points out that there are other factors beyond whether cyberstalking is a crime of violence that justify keeping Luke Wenke in pretrial detention. The government considers Luke Wenke to be a serious flight risk and argues that releasing him would pose the risk of obstructing justice and/or intimidating witnesses.

In addition to the aforementioned factors, the opposition document states that Luke Wenke has failed to present any new and material information pertinent to the case. In the eyes of the government, Wenke is reinterpreting — or, perhaps, misinterpreting — existing law, which does not justify reopening his detention hearing.