well, long story short, this began as an over reach in charging two land owning ranchers under terrorist laws. The first court gave them relatively light sentences, three months for one and one year and a day for the other.
The real issue began when the Feds stepped in to over ride sentencing and charged them as terrorists five years each.
Hammond arson case
Early conflicts with federal land managers
In 1994, Dwight Hammond and his son Steve obstructed the construction of a fence to delineate the boundary between the two parcels of property, prompting their arrest by federal agents. According to federal officials, construction of the fence was needed to stop the Hammond cattle from moving along a cattle trail that intersected public land after the Hammonds had repeatedly violated the terms of their permit, which limited when they could move their cows across refuge property.
[41] Officials also reported Hammond had made threats against them in 1986 and 1988, including telling one public lands manager that he was going to "tear off his head and shit down his neck". They also contended that Steve Hammond had called them "assholes".
[44] Following their release from jail on
recognizance, a rally attended by 500 other cattle ranchers was held in support of the Hammonds in Burns, and then-congressman
Robert Freeman Smith wrote a letter of protest to the
United States Secretary of the Interior,
Bruce Babbitt.
[41]
In 1995, voters, angry that it had not intervened on the Hammonds' behalf, attempted to
recall two members of the
Harney County Court,
[44] though the recall attempt failed. Charges against the Hammonds were later dropped.
[40]
In 1999, Steve Hammond started a fire with the intent of burning off
juniper trees and
sagebrush, but the fire escaped onto
BLM land. The agency reminded Hammond of the required burn permit and that if the fires continued, there would be legal consequences.
[45]
Fires for which the Hammonds were convicted
Both Dwight and Steve Hammond later set two fires, one in 2001 and one in 2006, that would lead to convictions of arson on federal land:
[46][47]
- The 2001 Hardie-Hammond fire began, according to Probation Officer Robb, when hunters in the area witnessed the Hammonds illegally slaughter a herd of deer.[48] Less than two hours later, a fire erupted and forced the hunters to leave the area, allegedly also to conceal evidence of the illegal killing of the deer.[49] Later, Steve's nephew Dusty Hammond testified that his uncle told him to start lighting matches and "light the whole countryside on fire." Dusty also testified that he was "almost burned up in the fire" and had to flee for his life.[45][50] The Hammonds have claimed they started the fire to stop invasive plants from growing onto their grazing fields.[51]
- The 2006 Krumbo Butte fire started out as a wildfire, but several illegal backburns were set by the Hammonds with the intent to protect their winter feed. The backfires were set under the cover of night without warning the firefighting camp that was known to be on the slopes above.[49][52] According to the indictment, the fires threatened to trap four BLM firefighters, one of whom later confronted Dwight Hammond at the fire scene after he had moved his crews to avoid the threat.[49][50] Two days later, according to federal prosecutors, Steve Hammond threatened to frame a BLM employee with arson if he didn't stop the investigation.[51]
Mid trial pre-sentencing agreement
In 2012, the Hammonds were tried in federal district court on multiple charges. During a break in jury deliberations, partial verdict were rendered finding the Hammonds not guilty on two of the charges, but convicting them on two counts of
arson on
federal land.
[49] Striking a plea bargain, in order to have the four remaining charges dismissed and for sentences on the two convictions to run concurrently, the Hammonds waived their rights to appeal their convictions. This was with their knowledge that the trial would proceed to sentencing where the prosecution intended to seek imposition of the mandatory five-year
minimum sentences.
[49][53]
Sentencing hearing, appeals of the sentence, and re-sentencing
At sentencing, the federal prosecutors requested the five-year
mandatory minimum under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
[52][54][55] U.S. District Judge Michael Robert Hogan independently decided that sentences of that length "would shock the conscience" and would violate the
constitutional prohibition on
cruel and unusual punishment. On his last day on the bench, October 31, 2012, Hogan instead sentenced Dwight Hammond to three months' imprisonment and Steve Hammond to a year and a day's imprisonment, which both men served.
[56][57] In what was described by one source as a "rare" action,
[58] U.S. Attorney Amanda Marshall successfully appealed the sentence to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the mandatory-minimum law, writing that "given the seriousness of arson, a five-year sentence is not grossly disproportionate to the offense." The court
vacated the original sentence and remanded for re-sentencing. The Hammonds filed petitions for
certiorari with the
Supreme Court, which the court rejected in March 2015.
[54] In October 2015, Chief Judge
Ann Aiken re-sentenced the pair to five years in prison (with credit for
time served), ordering that they return to prison on January 4, 2016.
[54][57]
Both of the Hammonds reported to prison in California on January 4 as ordered by the court.
[59] A few days earlier, the Hammonds also paid the federal government the remaining balance on a $400,000 court order for restitution related to the arson fires.
[52]
