us attorney for oregon who urged the hammonds be re-tried

by Willie Kohler 3 min read

Who is the US Attorney for Oregon?

Jan 07, 2016 · The US Attorney for Oregon issued two press releases on the re-sentencing of Dwight and Steven Hammond - the first in October, the second in December. Below is the complete text of both press...

Who was convicted of arson in Oregon?

“The jury was neither asked if the Hammonds were terrorists, nor were defendants ever charged with or accused of terrorism,” Acting U.S. Attorney for Oregon, Billy J. Williams, said in the statement addressed to his constituents. “Suggesting otherwise is simply flat-out wrong.”

Who is Steven Dwight Hammond Jr?

Jan 03, 2022 · Scott Erik Asphaug was appointed to serve as U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon on December 25, 2021. He will serve as the district’s chief federal law enforcement officer until a presidentially-appointed U.S. Attorney is confirmed by the Senate. Asphaug is a 16-year veteran of the Department of Justice, joining the U.S. Attorney’s ...

Why did Dwight and Steven Hammond start a fire?

The prosecutors appealed, arguing the mandatory minimum sentences had to hold. “The law wasn’t followed,” Bill Williams, Oregon’s U.S. attorney, told FRONTLINE. In …

image

How long did the Hammonds go to jail?

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.

Who is Dwight Hammond's son?

EUGENE, Ore. – Dwight Lincoln Hammond, Jr., 73, and his son, Steven Dwight Hammond, 46, both residents of Diamond, Oregon in Harney County, were sentenced to five years in prison by Chief U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken for arsons they committed on federal lands.

How long is the minimum sentence for arson?

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.

image