The Hammonds had already served (Dwight 3 months, Steven 12 months) for arson.
The arson charge stems from a back-fire the Hammonds set on their property to stop a lightening caused fire. The back-fire also burnt 127 acres of adjoining refuge land. Prior to starting the back-fire they called the fire department notifying them of their plans.
Five years later the government charged them with terrorism.
I am all for them being granted reprieve on the sentence - further analysis not necessary. However, there were two fires - you only spoke of one in your post where there were fires around them and he lit backfires to save their winter feed - Steven Hammond was convicted of that one also. The first fire was not charged until the second fire was lit and that WAS NOT a backfire to stop other wildfires already burning.
So in reality one of them was convicted of two arson fires - the son (I believe) was convicted of one arson fire. The sentence was the same on sentencing guidelines for one or two counts.
A jury hears far more facts than we do and draws their own conclusions - that is the way our legal system works. Here is a cut and paste of the press release by the U.S. Attorney. Yes, it is a summary of the governments case, but this is the narrative the jury decided upon at trial. This was a jury in Pendleton, Oregon, (Northeast corner of the state above where the Hammonds live) so it was a jury of their peers - people who live in the same community/area the Hammonds live in - not a bunch of environmental activists from Portland. The jury knew the issues at play from a local perspective and they decided to convict.
The jury deserves a measure of credibility beyond my summary or yours because we approach the story we have heard with many more ideas in mind far beyond what the jury considered - a jury is supposed to decide guilt or innocence based on facts presented and testimony - not their like or dislike of government.
Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison
EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.
A jury sitting in Pendleton, Oregon found the Hammonds guilty of the arsons after a two-week trial in June 2012. The trial involved allegations that the Hammonds, owners of Hammond Ranches, Inc., ignited a series of fires on lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), on which the Hammonds had grazing rights leased to them for their cattle operation.
The jury convicted both of the Hammonds of using fire to destroy federal property for a 2001 arson known as the Hardie-Hammond Fire, located in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. Witnesses at trial, including a relative of the Hammonds, testified the arson occurred shortly after Steven Hammond and his hunting party illegally slaughtered several deer on BLM property. Jurors were told that Steven Hammond handed out “Strike Anywhere†matches with instructions that they be lit and dropped on the ground because they were going to “light up the whole country on fire.†One witness testified that he barely escaped the eight to ten foot high flames caused by the arson. The fire consumed 139 acres of public land and destroyed all evidence of the game violations. After committing the arson, Steven Hammond called the BLM office in Burns, Oregon and claimed the fire was started on Hammond property to burn off invasive species and had inadvertently burned onto public lands. Dwight and Steven Hammond told one of their relatives to keep his mouth shut and that nobody needed to know about the fire.
The jury also convicted Steven Hammond of using fire to destroy federal property regarding a 2006 arson known as the Krumbo Butte Fire located in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Steen Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area. An August lightning storm started numerous fires and a burn ban was in effect while BLM firefighters fought those fires. Despite the ban, without permission or notification to BLM, Steven Hammond started several “back fires†in an attempt save the ranch’s winter feed. The fires burned onto public land and were seen by BLM firefighters camped nearby. The firefighters took steps to ensure their safety and reported the arsons.
By law, arson on federal land carries a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. When the Hammonds were originally sentenced, they argued that the five-year mandatory minimum terms were unconstitutional and the trial court agreed and imposed sentences well below what the law required based upon the jury’s verdicts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, upheld the federal law, reasoning that “given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense.†The court vacated the original, unlawful sentences and ordered that the Hammonds be resentenced “in compliance with the law.†In March 2015, the Supreme Court rejected the Hammonds’ petitions for certiorari. Today, Chief Judge Aiken imposed five year prison terms on each of the Hammonds, with credit for time they already served.
“We all know the devastating effects that are caused by wildfires. Fires intentionally and illegally set on public lands, even those in a remote area, threaten property and residents and endanger firefighters called to battle the blaze†stated Acting U.S. Attorney Billy Williams.
“Congress sought to ensure that anyone who maliciously damages United States’ property by fire will serve at least 5 years in prison. These sentences are intended to be long enough to deter those like the Hammonds who disregard the law and place fire fighters and others in jeopardy.â€
Fire incidents are managed by a centralized command. It’s a gray area, but backfires sometimes “backfire” to use a bad pun. I thin trees on my private property near my house to try and maintain a 200’ buffer, but I recognize that other people have built closer to property that is not theirs. The first fire was done to save winter feed - was not there and don’t know the circumstances, but wildfires are difficult to manage and fight under ideal circumstances without everybody lighting their own backfires. Just my .02 and I am sure your opinion is different.
They were charged and found guilty once. The judge disregarded the sentencing guidelines and gave them lighter sentences. The US attorney, who is a wacko, appealed the sentences, won, and the minimum sentences were tacked on, The charges they were tried on were part of a terrorism statute, which is not fair. If they were guilty of anything, it was poor range management. I know there were accusations of poaching involved, but I won’t comment on portions of the trial that are that murky.