Former federal prosecutor reviews Tree of Life trial, urges Massachusetts review of hate‑crime gaps and victim services

Eric Olshan, the lead federal prosecutor in the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue case in Pittsburgh, told the Massachusetts Special Commission on Antisemitism that mass‑violence attacks can strike any community and urged state lawmakers and law enforcement to examine statutory gaps, victim supports and security funding.

Olshan described the Oct. 27, 2018, attack at Tree of Life in Pittsburgh’s Squirrel Hill neighborhood, where a gunman later identified as Robert Bowers killed 11 worshipers. “Mass violence, as people in this room know all too well, can visit anyone,” Olshan said, summarizing the case for commissioners. He walked the panel through investigative evidence, the shooter’s online posts, and the federal charges filed in the case.

Why it matters: Olshan’s presentation tied a high‑profile federal prosecution to local policy questions the commission is charged with studying. He framed concrete topics – hate‑crime statutes, nonprofit security grants, victim‑witness outreach and trauma support – that state officials can examine without altering First Amendment protections.

Olshan described how investigators used the shooter’s social media and postings on the platform GAB to document a violent, supremacist worldview. Prosecutors brought federal counts including obstruction of the free exercise of religion (a federal statute first used in the Tree of Life indictment) and charges under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act; the federal government pursued capital punishment, a decision that produced extensive pretrial litigation. Olshan said the indictment included more than 60 counts and the case involved four‑and‑a‑half years of pretrial work before a guilt and penalty trial that began in February 2023. He said the jury heard 30 witnesses and returned guilt findings; the penalty phase concluded with a jury decision reported in August 2023.

Olshan also described operational lessons from Pittsburgh’s response: the value of embedded tactical EMS with SWAT, close victim‑witness engagement after the attack, and long‑term coordination with nonprofit victim services. He said a recurring problem for investigators is distinguishing constitutionally protected speech online from communications that meet the legal threshold for predicating an investigation. “If something crosses the line into an illegal threat, then law enforcement could predicate the investigation,” Olshan said, noting that the prevalence of hateful language on open platforms makes prevention and early intervention difficult.

Olshan urged commissioners to examine state statutory gaps, victim support capacity and the distribution of nonprofit security grants. He recommended public education and community outreach as complements to law enforcement action, and he urged stable funding for victim‑assistance personnel who maintain long‑term contact with survivors and witnesses. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about how to balance proactive work with First Amendment limits; Olshan recommended targeted outreach and public education rather than broad surveillance of online speech.

Commission context: Olshan told the commission that prosecutors and FBI victim‑witness teams met frequently with surviving families during the long pretrial period and that a nonprofit, the 10/27 Pittsburgh Partnership, played a continuing role in community support. He also noted that the shooter’s social media banner referenced white‑supremacist slogans and that the defendant had posted material praising violent imagery, details that became evidence at trial.

The commission did not take any formal vote during Olshan’s presentation; the session transitioned afterward into public comment and testimony from community leaders.