By
Usually it’s defendants who appeal their sentences as being too high. But the Justice Department has signaled it’s challenging — as too low — the 18-year prison term for Stewart Rhodes and several other Jan. 6-related sentences for convicted Oath Keepers.
Yet, while the government won’t lose anything for trying, the odds of getting an appeals court to overturn a trial judge’s sentence aren’t great.
Politico reported that federal prosecutors signaled their challenge Wednesday for the Oath Keepers sentences handed down by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C.
As MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann noted, it’s “very surprising” and “rare” for the government to take this step.
NBC News reported that at Rhodes’ sentencing in May for seditious conspiracy, Mehta said the Oath Keepers founder presents “an ongoing threat and a peril to this country and to the republic and to the very fabric of this democracy.” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at the time that the sentence for Rhodes — the longest Jan. 6 prison term to date — and Oath Keepers member Kelly Meggs’ 12-year term “reflect the grave threat the actions of these defendants posed to our democratic institutions.”
No matter how it shakes out, more than a decade in prison, or any prison time for that matter, is nothing to sneeze at.
Prosecutors had sought a 25-year sentence for Rhodes. Going lower than that, Mehta gave him a sentence below the range set out by the federal sentencing guidelines, which judges consider but aren’t bound by.
To be sure, we’ll want to see what arguments the Justice Department makes on appeal. Given the rarity of such a move, federal prosecutors may have specific reasoning to put forth in these grave and historic cases. No matter how it shakes out, more than a decade in prison, or any prison time for that matter, is nothing to sneeze at.
Either way, given the unusual nature of such a challenge, we’ll want to watch this one closely.