Judge is unsure that Christian terrorist who made elaborate plans to kill US Muslims is a threat

Earlier this year Robert Doggart, a Christian minster, told an FBI informant of his plans to attack a Pennsylvania community of black Muslims. He told the informant about the explosives he was going to make and showed him his weapons, including an M-4 military assault rifle. According to Daily Beast, Doggart "had engaged in a great deal of planning, including making a detailed weapons list that included armor piercing bullets, reaching out to militia groups, and allegedly enlisting the support of nine men." Doggart even signed a plea agreement in which he "stipulated expressly that it amounted to a 'true threat.'"

Doggart was being held without bail but now a federal judge has released him because and stated that he "may not accept the guilty plea because he's unsure if Doggart's actions constitute a 'true threat' as required by the federal statute."

So how rare is it for a judge to reject a proposed plea deal agreed to by both the prosecutor and defendant? Seema Iyer, a former prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney, explained that she has only witnessed a judge do this two or three times ever in her nearly her 20 years of criminal law work.