It is so ordered: Home for Christmas
Hankison Appeal, Post 1 - The presence is the gift
From Fastzone, Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah! I hope to continue exercising my free speech in covering rule-of-law and other topics on the Substack platform in 2026. Please share these posts.
My well wishes extend to fellow Americans with faith roots in Old Testament law, and to Muslims who are not involved in degrading American law and culture.
A special shout out to Attorney Ibrahim Farag who has organized all of Brett’s trials and continues to assist him.
We are hearing an outcry of contempt for Muslims on some news programs and podcasts, after violent attacks and extensive fraud perpetrated on taxpayers. The great lesson from the Holocaust is to refrain from group condemnation— See each person as an individual and judge them by their own words and deeds.
The release of Brett Hankison from prison during his Appeal has been in the news! This post presents in-depth information from the Order posted on the Appeals Court PACER docket on December 19. Quotations and paraphrasing from this document are below, with many breaks in formatting to help laypeople grasp the issues so we can understand where things stand and why.
The panel of judges responsible for this case are:
Julia Smith Gibbons, Sr. Judge since 2024, appointed by George W. Bush, 2002
Amul R. Thapar, Circuit Judge, appointed by Donald Trump, 2017
Chad A. Reader, Circuit Judge, appointed by Donald Trump, 2019
Their reasoning in releasing Brett from the Fort Dix federal prison is:
This case presents “substantial questions”
Hankison is not a flight risk nor danger to the community
Background
Based on facts of the early morning series of events at Breonna Taylor’s apartment—
Brett was tried in state court and acquitted by a jury on all counts
After this verdict “the federal government charged Hankison under 18 USC §242 for seizing Taylor and her neighbors in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The jury deliberated for about three days without reaching a verdict, and the district court declared a mistrial.”
“The federal government retried Hankison in October 2024. After another lengthy trial and two Allen charges, the jury acquitted Hankison of charges relating to Taylor’s neighbors but convicted Hankison of violating Taylors’ Fourth Amendment rights.”
Brett’s attorneys challenged the verdict and argued that the government failed to show Taylor was alive when Hankison fired into her apartment and requested a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. The DOJ attorneys and Judge Jennings opposed the motions.
A sentence of time served and three years of supervised release was requested; Hankison was ultimately sentenced to 33 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
The Appeal was filed along with a motion for bail pending appeal. This motion was denied by Judge Jennings but was not opposed by the DOJ, whose lead attorney is now different from Merrick Garland’s man.
Brett began his sentence on October 9, 2025, and the KY Western District Court’s motion ruling was appealed.
The panel of three at the Appeals Court reviewed Judge Jennings’ denial of the motion for bail and concluded—
Under the Bail Reform Act, Hankison can be released pending appeal if he shows:
by clear and convincing evidence that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to others if released,
that the appeal is not for purposes of delay, and
that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal.
“The first two factors easily favor Hankison.” The government, defendant and district court agree that he is not a flight risk or a danger to others; both sides agree that his appeal is not an attempt at delay.
The third factor, “whether Hankison’s appeal presents a substantial question” is the central issue. This is determined by:
—whether the appeal ‘presents a close question or one that could go either way’ and
—whether it raises an issue that is ‘so integral to the merits of the conviction that it is more probable than not that reversal or a new trial will occur if the question is decided in the defendant’s favor.’
The panel of judges state that Hankison has presented a substantial question.
The evidence that substantiates his conviction is not sufficient. Was Taylor “alive or otherwise capable of being seized” when he fired?
As well, Hankison’s assertion that the government (DOJ) failed to show his use of deadly force was unreasonable or that he willfully deprived Taylor of her rights, are well taken.
“These arguments raise serious and substantial issues that merit close consideration. The issues are also unique. The government admits this was a novel prosecution; it is not aware of any other prosecution of its type…
“Ultimately, if Hankison succeeds on any of the issues he raises, we would be required to vacate his conviction or give him a new trial.”
A final ‘hurdle for bail’ is based on the nature of his indictment. Because his offense carried a possible life sentence, he must be detained. But the panel rebutted this strong presumption as inappropriate because the case is ‘extraordinary’ which is within their powers to determine.
Their judgment was based on these points:
The Trump DOJ did not oppose Hankison’s motion for bail and recommended no custodial sentence.
Hankison served more than two months in custody, far longer than either party sought.
The case presents novel issues.
The government agrees that Hankison has many unusual mitigation factors in his favor. Examples:
He is a veteran law enforcement officer whose trial and sentencing were highly publicized
At Fort Dix his notoriety led to threats that required him to be moved to special housing
His ‘compelling concerns about safety during the pendency of his appeal support our decision to grant bail pending appeal.’
Happily, Brett is now home with his family and dogs.