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.
Agreed. Well said, Jeff.
Damn straight!
This screams of injustice.
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.
Yes it should. The government is pushing this because they want their land.
Resisted in court and on the street,
but not on trespass on government (or private) property.
You cannot credibly stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law by breaking it.