[microgood]

Because George Bush is President and the prosecutor Sutton is a good ol boy Texan and friend of Bush.

Two things stand out about this case.

One thing for sure is they were trying to make an example of some kind because the charge that put them in jail for such a long time was connected to them being in possession of a gun when they committed the crime, a charge which has never before or since been used against law enforcement officials while on duty. The law is meant to provide more severe punishments for crimes like bank robberies, etc where guns are used, not for cases like this.

The second point is that noone has a chance against the Feds in court, so if you do not take their plea bargain they will hammer you so bad you will wish you were never born. If you are ever charged at the Federal level, either take the plea or split the country, because you have no prayer in the courtroom.

[1rudeboy]

One thing for sure is they were trying to make an example of some kind because the charge that put them in jail for such a long time was connected to them being in possession of a gun when they committed the crime, a charge which has never before or since been used against law enforcement officials while on duty.

That is false. It is spin. Not only had the law been used against LEO's, but it had been used against LEO's in that very jurisdiction.

The defendants therefore advance the argument* that the application of the statute to the facts of this case is novel, i.e., did not provide them with fair warning, because its application here frustrates the statute’s legislative purpose, has no support in the cases of this circuit, and makes for bad public policy. [footnote ommitted] But cases in our circuit have permitted application of § 924(c)(1)(A) to police officers. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2003); United States v. Winters 105 F.3d 200 (5th Cir. 1997).

_____
*The defendents advanced more than one argument in this regard.