Man imprisoned for standoff with feds fights resentencing

By Kathy Mccormack
Associated Press
CONCORD — A man awaiting resentencing for an armed standoff with U.S. marshals who surrounded his fortress-like home in 2007 has objected to the process as double jeopardy.

Edward Brown, 78, was sentenced to 37 years in prison after the monthslong standoff at his 100-acre property in Plainfield, New Hampshire. His wife, Elaine Brown, received a 35-year sentence, but a judge decided in January that she could be released after serving over 12 years in prison. She is seeking a divorce.

Prosecutors recommended that Edward Brown, who served about the same amount of time, be resentenced to a term of 30 years to life in prison. His hearing is scheduled for March 24.

“The defendant was the leader of a violent conspiracy designed to thwart the rule of law through threats and violence,” U.S. Attorney Scott Murray said in court documents. “He threatened to kill law enforcement if they did their jobs and these were not merely empty threats. The defendant armed himself to the teeth and invited others to help him.”

The couple were holed up for nine months at their home after they stopped showing up in court for their trial on tax evasion charges. Anti-tax crusaders and out-of-state militia groups rallied to their cause. The Browns were arrested by U.S. marshals who posed as supporters and gained entry to their home. The marshals discovered weapons, explosives and booby traps.

One charge against them, carrying and possessing a destructive device in connection with a crime of violence, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years. Their conviction on that charge was vacated in light of a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found the “crime of violence” term unconstitutionally vague.

Brown’s lawyer argued in court papers that Brown completed his sentences on all of the other convictions. “Re-sentencing Brown now would violate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments for an offense,” attorney Benjamin Falkner wrote.

Falkner added that the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause also would be violated. “Brown had a right to rely on the validity of the original sentences and to expect that when he had served his time behind bars, those sentences were complete,” he wrote.

Murray noted that other defendants have made similar arguments and weren’t successful. Judges have the right to revisit the sentences on the other charges, he wrote.

He noted that years ago, the judge didn’t have to impose more than the mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years for Brown, but increased it to 37 years to reflect the “overall view about the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and the danger that he represents to the public.”