Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: PAR35

“The original judge didn’t like the Statutory Minimum set by Congress for the offense for which the defendants were convicted,”

Also, it was morally wrong that these two guys were charged under a terrorist law. That is what offended the judge.


169 posted on 01/03/2016 12:01:22 PM PST by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]


To: DesertRhino
Also, it was morally wrong that these two guys were charged under a terrorist law. That is what offended the judge.

It isn't uncommon for a prosecutor to go with the highest possible charge in order to encourage a plea bargain. Here, they were able to make the highest charge stick when the defendants didn't cop a plea.

Since there has been much misinformation posted by either militia types or government agents provocateur (not sure which) let's all get on the same page.

Defendants took the case to trial, and lost.
Defendants agreed to not appeal in exchange for the government dismissing other charges.
The charges upon which the defendants were convicted has a mandatory minimum.
The judge sentenced the defendants to less than the statutory minimum.
DOJ appealed the sentence to the 9th Circuit, which vacated the sentence as "illegal".
On remand, the trial court entered a legal sentence in compliance with the law.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1656649.html

180 posted on 01/03/2016 12:22:17 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson