The reason the Hammond Ranch is under siege?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

That's because I don't have a law degree and don't pretend to have one, though it's amusing to watch internet lawyers second guess court verdicts for trials they weren't a part of.

I wasn't going to touch this comment, but it irked me enough to.

I'm not a lawyer either. What I am is an individual with an intelligent mind, and GOOGLE. I can look up what the law says, I can look up case examples, I can look up HOW the law should be interpreted. I'm also smart enough to know that even as I'm not a lawyer it's better to be informed of laws, rather than ignorant of them.

I'm also smart enough to know that once a sentence has begun its term, it CANNOT be extended. That is double jeopardy, and that is why I could represent the Hammonds personally.

Carry on about the grass fire though please.

a reply to: Vector99

I'm not defending their decision to do something. You are questioning a bunch of ranchers living in the middle of nowhere knowing if they can get a grass fire hot enough to cremate an animal and that is a ridiculous thing to ask me. At no point have I suggested the Hammonds were intelligent. In fact, I've said time and again that they are idiots, so it reasons to me that they wouldn't have known about or bothered to look up the discrepancy you pointed out and just did it anyways. I think you are giving too much credit to the Hammonds' intelligence here...

a reply to: Vector99

Actually that ISN'T double jeopardy. Double jeopardy requires you to be retried for the same crime. A resentencing is perfectly legal. This is something I learned through the use of Google.

See?
Are Dwight and Steven Hammond being subject to Double Jeopardy?

No; they are not being tried for the same crime twice; they are being resentenced in concordance with a directive from an appellate court, because the trial court erred in sentencing them below the statutory minimum for the crimes of which they were convicted.
Double Jeopardy applies if someone is tried twice for the exact same crime, usually after being acquitted the first time.
A good explanation follows:

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.

Ref: Eastern Oregon Ranchers Convicted of Arson Resentenced to Five Years in Prison

That's a quora post from an actual lawyer. Here's more:
The feds' case: What they said of Hammonds' resentencing

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.”

Legal website:
Double Jeopardy

Double jeopardy protection only defends individuals against prosecution for the same offense, but what constitutes the same offense? State and federal courts apply a multitude of tests to determine whether the same facts have already been litigated, whether the “actual evidence” has already been presented in court, whether all the criminal acts were part of the “same transaction,” or whether the defendant is being re-prosecuted for the “same conduct.”

This note is at the end of the page:

As you can see, double jeopardy protections are a complex and potentially confusing area of criminal law. If you would like assistance, you can meet with a criminal attorney to discuss your case. You can also visit FindLaw’s criminal law section if you would like more general information on this topic.

So I'd say that not being a lawyer and pretending to know what is Double Jeopardy is pretty naive. I side with the state. They had 5 year minimum sentencing laws which were ignored due to an erroneous argument by the defense of unconstitutionality. That was overturned by an Appeals court and they got a longer sentence. It's the SAME exact thing as a defense appealing a verdict for a more lenient sentence and then having the term reduced. At the end of the day, they are forcing them to obey the federal law on the matter which was disobeyed by the trial court.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The grass fire gets hot enough...for 15 seconds.

Are you seriously trying to imply that ranchers are stupid? They are a bit more edumakated than you would like to think. Burning things is part of their lifestyle. They do controlled burns all the time that you and I would look at and say HEY WTF A FIRE!. They look and say, no son, this is part of living on the land.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The grass fire gets hot enough...for 15 seconds.

Are you seriously trying to imply that ranchers are stupid? They are a bit more edumakated than you would like to think. Burning things is part of their lifestyle. They do controlled burns all the time that you and I would look at and say HEY WTF A FIRE!. They look and say, no son, this is part of living on the land.

Yes. I am. Dumb people do dumb crimes all the time. I imagine alcohol may have been involved at some point in the doing of the crime as well. I'm not going to assume anything about the intelligence of these people, because I don't make unwarranted assumptions. It isn't an unlikely scenario that these two were just dumb and didn't know that the fire wouldn't get hot enough. Keep in mind, the fire DID get out of control and that was why they were arrested. So they clearly WEREN'T in as control as you are giving them credit for.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The charge is the same, the same one they served time for already, as already admitted per the resentencing judge

No person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy

This is where the law gets funny, it doesn't matter if they were mis-sentenced originally. They were ordered to a term that was set in place by the courts, and acknowledged by the courts. Since the imposed terms were accepted and served, the courts legally cannot seek additional punishment for the same crime. That is the definition of double jeopardy. The court accepted their original sentence and did not appeal it. If they were to appeal the sentencing before terms of sentencing had begun, they could have legally increased the sentencing to the mandatory minimums. However, since they did not, and the judgement set was accepted by the courts, that judgement MUST stand.

a reply to: Vector99

Quote some legal precedent of a resentencing to a longer sentence that has successfully been argued as double jeopardy then. That is the only way to prove your point at this point in time. If you can do that, I will agree with you. Otherwise I'm siding with the federal government on this.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vector99

Quote some legal precedent of a resentencing to a longer sentence that has successfully been argued as double jeopardy then. That is the only way to prove your point at this point in time. If you can do that, I will agree with you. Otherwise I'm siding with the federal government on this.

one case
another

a reply to: Vector99

This is the first sentence of the case trial:

After respondent was found guilty of murder, the Arizona trial court granted a new trial because the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense

So you haven't fulfilled my request. There hasn't been a second trial with the Hammonds. An appeals court overturned the sentence without a second trial.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The state doesn't get the right to request a retrial, only the defendant does. When the state does it, it's double jeopardy.

a reply to: Vector99

Your second trial looks more appropriate. Give me time to dissect it and see what it says.

ETA: Ok I read through this trial summary and am ready to give my remarks on it.

An Arizona jury convicted respondent of armed robbery and first degree murder. The trial judge, with no jury, then conducted a separate sentencing hearing to determine, according to the statutory scheme for considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-703 (Supp.1983-1984), whether death was the appropriate sentence for the murder conviction. Petitioner, relying entirely on the evidence presented at trial, argued that three statutory aggravating circumstances were present. Respondent, presenting only one witness, countered that no aggravating circumstances were present, but that several mitigating circumstances were. One of the principal points of contention concerned the scope of Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-703(F)(5) (Supp.1983-1984), which defines as an aggravating circumstance the murder's commission "as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of anything of pecuniary value." Respondent argued that this provision applies only to murders for hire, whereas petitioner argued that it applies to all murders committed in order to obtain money.

Several days after the sentencing hearing, the trial judge, who imposes sentence without the assistance of a jury under the Arizona scheme, returned a "special verdict" setting forth his findings on each of the statutory aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The judge found that no aggravating or mitigating circumstances were present.

After reading this carefully a few times I can see how the Hammond situation is different than this one. Again, the situation falls back on the fact that the resentencing occurred due to an appeal. Your example above appears to be a sentencing judge overturning a trial judge's verdict with no appeal having been made by the prosecution.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The state doesn't get the right to request a retrial, only the defendant does. When the state does it, it's double jeopardy.

The state didn't request a retrial with the hammonds. They appealed the verdict.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

3 years after the term was served. The state can appeal a sentence, not a verdict. But they have to do it before the term has begun for it to be valid. Otherwise the sentence was recorded by the courts as verdict imposed with sentencing. Right or wrong, the law was written into the books, the government wrote it themself, they cannot legally add more terms to a sentence served.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krazysh0t

3 years after the term was served. The state can appeal a sentence, not a verdict.

That's what I meant. They appealed the sentence. My bad. I mistyped.

But they have to do it before the term has begun for it to be valid. Otherwise the sentence was recorded by the courts as verdict imposed with sentencing. Right or wrong, the law was written into the books, the government wrote it themself, they cannot legally add more terms to a sentence served.

This is new. First I've heard of this. Care to cite where you heard or read this being the case? Do you have the date when the state filed its appeal of the Hammonds' sentence as well to verify if this even applies?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

looking to find the official appeal dates. As far as what i said being valid, it's the double jeopardy clause. The court recorded the verdict as legal and binding. It's really hard to find case examples because this IS the exception. The arizona one is the best I can find so far, the judge ruled a lesser sentence and was recorded into the books. Sentence appeals don't work because the sentence term began.

sentencing appeal doc
link

To add, the initial court documents from this case originate in 2012, if you mean to tell me they deferred sentencing imposement for over a year, you are wrong. I can't find the exact dates the terms of sentencing began, but I will, don't worry.



Okay yep read towards the end

Prosecution did not appeal the charge in court, they accepted it. Sentenced term was imposed to start in January 2013 per self-surrender. They did. Charge imposed and served as per a judge and court of law.

You cannot add terms to a served sentence, it literally is the definition of double jeopardy.

originally posted by: Vector99
sentencing appeal doc
link

To add, the initial court documents from this case originate in 2012, if you mean to tell me they deferred sentencing imposement for over a year, you are wrong. I can't find the exact dates the terms of sentencing began, but I will, don't worry.


Okay yep read towards the end

Prosecution did not appeal the charge in court, they accepted it. Sentenced term was imposed to start in January 2013 per self-surrender. They did. Charge imposed and served as per a judge and court of law.

You cannot add terms to a served sentence, it literally is the definition of double jeopardy.

No it isn't. We've already had this conversation. As for the Double Jeopardy Clause, here it is:
Double Jeopardy Clause

First the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And now onto the wiki page that describes the clause. The wiki page outlines these four things that must occur for double jeopardy:

retrial after an acquittal;
retrial after a conviction;
retrial after certain mistrials; and
multiple punishment

As no retrials have taken place, the first three don't apply. So let's look at the Multiple Punishments part, which says:

The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts. [Citation needed]

The prosecution may not seek capital punishment in the retrial if the jury did not impose it in the original trial. The reason for this exception is that before imposing the death penalty the jury has to make several factual determinations and if the jury does not make these it is seen as the equivalent of an acquittal of a more serious offense.

I bolded the part that applies to the Hammond case. Unfortunately it says citation needed, so I can't give a more substantive account for my position there. You'll have to rely on other information and sources I've presented about double jeopardy law.

The entry goes on to discuss the "Arizona v. Rumsey" case that you mentioned earlier, but I already explained how that was a different situation than what happened with the Hammonds.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The majority of your response is the defendant's rights, NOT the state's.

multiple punishment

The defendant may not be punished twice for the same offense. In certain circumstances, however, a sentence may be increased. It has been held that sentences do not have the same "finality" as acquittals, and may therefore be reviewed by the courts.

this is what is in question.

You didn't even bother to read the documents I provided, why are you worth conversing with?

a reply to: Vector99



You are arguing with a post,he will take big Gov`s side everytime,unless of course it`s a leftist cause.

a reply to: Sunwolf

frustrating to say the least, especially when I lay it out plain as day...