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

Skip to comments.

Glenn Beck: Re-Sentencing Oregon Ranchers Is ‘Double Jeopardy’
The Blaze ^ | 1-4-16 | Tre Goins-Phillips

Posted on 01/04/2016 12:47:14 PM PST by taraytarah

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
To: RIghtwardHo

“Beck is so stupid it hurts.”

Suggest you research the double jeopardy clause in the constitution that protects individuals against multiple punishments. Once a judge sentences a defendant or dismisses a case outright it’s final.


21 posted on 01/04/2016 1:21:29 PM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

Can anyone contact the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif???


22 posted on 01/04/2016 1:22:33 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Care to fill in some blanks?


23 posted on 01/04/2016 1:22:37 PM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeaugaRepublican
I don’t have time to look at the case but did they have defense counsel? Where the heck is their defense counsel?

They did and I assume the defense counsel was also handling the appeals, which were turned down at the 9th District and the Supreme Court levels.

24 posted on 01/04/2016 1:23:31 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Beck is Stupid? He moved to Texas..

where do you live??


25 posted on 01/04/2016 1:23:54 PM PST by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

Thought soetoro and the DOJ were against minimum sentences.


26 posted on 01/04/2016 1:23:57 PM PST by Eagles6 ( Valley Forge Redux. If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us then who?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah; wardaddy
This says it all right here, regarding the Hammonds:

Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.

Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."

In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve the five-year sentence.

And what for? when a wildfire threatened, he set a back fire to protect his property.

When invasive, noxious vegetation threatened...he burned it off.

They went after him because he did this on federal land they had leased to him, and some of it got off of the lease onto land that was not being used at all.

This was a gross miscarriage of justice from the get go...and at least the original judge tried to mitigate it.

now they are putting the hammer down after the original sentence was served.

This should be stood against...not to mention all the other ranchers that the Federal government is trying to force out of the area through the expansion of their wildlife refuge.

It is a different set of conditions...but it is the same playbook they used in Klamath in 2001.

And it should be resisted.

27 posted on 01/04/2016 1:26:20 PM PST by Jeff Head (Semper Fidelis - Molon Labe - Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

If the ex-cons had been members of a privileged minority, they would not be back in jail now.


28 posted on 01/04/2016 1:26:37 PM PST by I want the USA back (Media: completely irresponsible. Complicit in the destruction of this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah

bflr


29 posted on 01/04/2016 1:26:38 PM PST by sauropod (I am His and He is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Agreed. Well said, Jeff.


30 posted on 01/04/2016 1:27:16 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Departures from Federal Sentencing Guidelines, either up or down, are appeal-able by either People or Defs.

Either way, the revised and expanded sentences stand unless stayed for an appeal.

Instant case Defs would probably appeal or have probably appealed, but the matter of revisable sentences is settled law, and the time for appeal of the original conviction is probably well passed.

Defs are SOL and the gunslingers will only make it worse for them.


31 posted on 01/04/2016 1:28:18 PM PST by The All Knowing All Seeing Oz (I carry a handgun because even a small police officer is too big and heavy to carry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lacrew
Ok. I know very little about the law...but isn't this type of re-sentencing (especially lengthening the sentence) rare? And if judge no. 1 says 5 years is 'cruel and unusual', does judge no. 2 have to justify why it isn't.

Yes, because usually when a law carries a mandatory sentence then the judge imposes that sentence. And the Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory sentences are not cruel and unusual punishment.

And even the basis of prosecution seems sketchy. The son lit a backfire, in a (successful) effort to stop a wildfire. Whatever procedural violations he may have committed, does it rise to the level of 'terrorism'?

They weren't charges with terrorism, they were basically charges with arson. They had lit fires on two prior instances, in 1999 and 2001, and in both cases they were told that they couldn't do it without a permit. In this last case they lit the backfire even though a burn-ban had been issued due to the dry conditions. They were tried and convicted for the 2001 and 2006 fires.

It sounds like targeting/selective prosecution.

Sounds like three strikes and you're out to me. Having done it twice and been warned twice they persisted in doing it a third time. Why are people surprised that they were then brought to trial?

32 posted on 01/04/2016 1:29:19 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
Suggest you research the double jeopardy clause in the constitution that protects individuals against multiple punishments.

Actually it protects individuals from being tried twice for the same crime. In this case there was one trial, one verdict, one sentence, one sentence overturned and replaced with the required minimum. The Hammonds will get credit for time served.

33 posted on 01/04/2016 1:32:28 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Thought soetoro and the DOJ were against minimum sentences.

I think they are but they're still on the books.

34 posted on 01/04/2016 1:33:21 PM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: taraytarah
Technically, re-sentencing is not (quite) double jeopardy. However, it certainly violates the spirit of the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy to re-sentence the convicted "criminals" after their sentence has been served. It also violates any decent person's sense of justice - a consideration that is not relevant to anyone in the Obama Regime.

Even in cases where I would have approved of a longer sentence (a #BlackThugsMatter arsonist instead of a rancher doing a controlled burn), I would not approve of this sort of governmental exercise of power. Once a federal judge sentences a "criminal" and the convicted "criminal" serves his sentence, it's time to let it go.

35 posted on 01/04/2016 1:33:22 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
“Beck is Stupid? He moved to Texas.”

Beck lives in this area around Dallas. I recall his Fox program when he decided he should get out of the New York area. That was during the time he began to be a prepper. He could see staying in that area was no place to be. He also became a friend of David Barton who lives here in Texas. Beck made a good move to get out of there and put his roots down here in Texas.

36 posted on 01/04/2016 1:34:56 PM PST by Marcella (CRUZ (Prepping can save your life today))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Damn straight!

This screams of injustice.


37 posted on 01/04/2016 1:35:21 PM PST by sauropod (I am His and He is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ez

With the help of the wife of the wildlife refuge.


38 posted on 01/04/2016 1:38:47 PM PST by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Did Judge Aiken act sua sponte or did the prosecution bring a motion for resentencing (if such a thing is even possible)?

The prosecution appealed the sentence (which the Government is allowed to do if the sentence is illegal, e.g., less than the statutory mandatory minimum). The Court of Appeals ordered the resentencing and sent the case back down to Judge Aiken.

39 posted on 01/04/2016 1:39:30 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
This says it all right here, regarding the Hammonds:

Three years ago, U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan, who is now retired, sentenced the father, Dwight Hammond, to three months in prison and the son, Steven Hammond, to one year.

Hogan had reduced the Hammonds' sentences from the five-year minimum required because he said it would have violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, adding that it would have been "grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offenses here."

In October of last year, after both men had served their sentences, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken deemed the father-son duo's time served to be too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison Monday, Jan. 4, to serve the five-year sentence.

Well, actually, no, this doesn't "say it all." Certain other salient points that deserve a mention:

1. As was noted, the crime of which the Hammonds were found guilty, by a jury, carried with them a (federal) statutory "minimum" sentence of five years. The original sentencing judge, Hogan, found that imposition of that statutorily-compelled minimum sentence would violate the Eighth Amendment.

2. Subsequently, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Judge Hogan's Eighth Amendment-based deviation from the statutorily-compelled minimum sentence was itself unlawful and vacated the sentences that Judge Hogan had imposed on the Hammonds. Their case was then remanded back to the U.S. district court for re-sentencing consistent with federal law.

3. In the interim, Judge Hogan had retired from the U.S. district court, and Judge Aiken had been appointed the new chief judge. Judge Aiken did not unilaterally "deem" the original sentences "too short" but, rather, applied the law as the Ninth Circuit had directed the district court do on remand.

4. On June 17, 2014, the Hammonds petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review their case and sentencing. Notably, the Hammonds in their petition for certiorari did not raise any claims based on "double jeopardy." Rather, the thrust of their challenge was the Eighth Amendment issue that Judge Hogan had originally addressed.

5. On March 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Hammonds' petition.

40 posted on 01/04/2016 1:43:52 PM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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