But at sentencing the Government wanted an enhancement — and a longer sentence — based on the same claim. Even after the Judge ruled against the DOJ on the same type of effort regarding a different defendant — that the enhancement only applied if the defendant KNEW the grand jury was investigating him — the Government continued to press for the enhancement at the sentencing of my client. There was no evidence he “discarded” the phone (I asked both agents if it was possible that the phone was in my office in Hawaii and they both said “yes”), and there was no evidence he knew he was under grand jury investigation until the date of his arrest. But the Government kept arguing for the enhancement.

This is the approach being taken across the entire spectrum of cases based on what I’ve read, and this is why ridiculously excessive sentences are being demanded by the Government in just about every case.

[If this was the standard applied consistently to rioters attacking police, I’d say yes. But it’s not applied consistently, and in many cases, prosecution doesn’t come at all for ideologically ‘acceptable’ protests. It’s not just the sentencing that’s become politicized. — Ed]