The sentences imposed on the Oath Keepers convicted for January 6-related crimes were lower than what the government recommended, highlighting a gap between the prosecution's desired outcomes and the actual sentences.
The Department of Justice's decision to appeal the Oath Keepers' sentences is significant and uncommon, indicating potential concerns regarding the value of sentencing guidelines and aiming to establish higher standards for future sentencing in similar cases.
Deep dives
Overview of Oath Keepers' Sentences
The government appeals the sentences of seven Oath Keepers convicted for January 6-related crimes, seeking longer terms. The sentences imposed on these individuals were lower than what the government recommended. For instance, Rhodes received 18 years instead of 25, Megs got 12 years instead of 21, Watkins got 8.5 years instead of 18, and Harrelson got four years instead of 15. The gaps between the recommended and imposed sentences ranged from seven years less to 17 years less, which disappointed the government. However, the court computed the guidelines, including a consideration of the offenses and individual circumstances, and the final sentences were below the computed guidelines.
Background and Details of Oath Keepers' Case
The Oath Keepers, charged as conspirators in the January 6 attack on the Capitol, played a prominent role in the event. They were charged with seditious conspiracy, obstructing an official proceeding, and using force to prevent officers from discharging their duties. The leaders, like Rhodes and Megs, were convicted for seditious conspiracy, while some others were convicted for related conspiracies. A total of 23 defendants have been convicted, mostly of felonies, with 22 having convictions related to the conspiracy charges. The defendants' actions included entering the Capitol, planning, and possession of an arsenal. The government sought terror enhancements for all defendants, but the sentences imposed didn't effectively account for these enhancements.
Appeals and Reasons Behind Them
The Department of Justice's decision to appeal the Oath Keepers' sentences is uncommon, especially since sentencing guidelines have been advisory since the Supreme Court ruling in 2005. The government may be appealing due to the significant gaps between the recommended and imposed sentences. They may argue that these disparities question the value of the sentencing guidelines. The imposition of terror enhancements, without it significantly affecting the actual sentences, could also be a concern. Additionally, the appeals may have strategic motivations, aiming to establish higher standards and benchmarks for future sentencing of individuals involved in similar crimes. The outcome of these appeals could impact forthcoming sentencing decisions for other defendants, such as the Proud Boys.
On July 12, the Justice Department appealed the sentences of seven Oath Keepers convicted for Jan. 6-related crimes. Five have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, and two others were convicted of conspiring to obstruct Congress. Lawfare Intern Gia Kokotakis sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff, a former lawyer and expert on the Jan. 6 Oath Keepers prosecutions who directly observed the proceedings. They discussed who the defendants are, how their sentences were calculated, and the Justice Department's strategic motivations for filing the appeals.
