"Defendants are presumed innocent of all charges against them. ... This presumption of innocence is part and parcel of why, 'In our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception,'" Roberts wrote, quoting a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
Prosecutors claim the suspects are too dangerous to be released from jail.
"The defendants must be released," the judge said Wednesday at the end of an eight-page decision.
On Monday, Roberts said it was "offensive and hate-filled speech" but it did not signal a conspiracy to levy war against the government.
Since a series of raids and arrests in late March, Hutaree members have been portrayed by the government as homegrown extremists out to strike at authorities. But evidence offered during the detention hearing pointed to no specific plot.
"The government's position that the defendants sought to acquire explosive devices is weakened by the evidence that the agents found no explosive devices when defendants were arrested," the judge said.
A rather entertaining take is offered over at Carol's Closet
One assumes that if the Hutaree "may have been planning something" that they also may not of have been planning something. If this is the best that the government can do I have to wonder why these people were picked up to begin with. After all, talking smack isn’t typically illegal.
Could it be that this whole little manuver was the government exercising politics rather than protecting the public?