Doesn't this give the government the unchecked ability to detain whoever they want indefinitely, then?

They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?

Analemma_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s not how any of this works. You still have rights when you’re being detained for contempt, you can claim you’re being held arbitrarily for being asked to turn over evidence that doesn’t exist, and an appeals court will decide if that’s true and release you if so. It’s not a magic incantation to hold anyone indefinitely at random.

	▲	dwedge 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It seems he pled guilty to missing a hearing and then was held indefinitely on that plea bargain, because the judge wanted him to turn over evidence. I don't know, if this happened as it's reported it seems incredibly close to a magic incantation

▲

MBCook 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn’t that exactly what this article is about? A guy that was released from jail on contempt because it can’t be used indefinitely?

▲

bobsmooth 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

After a decade in prison without being charged.

	▲	tptacek 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		He was charged, with contempt.

▲

bram98 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

After a decade.

	▲	MBCook 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The standard federal limit is 18 months. An appeals court said that didn’t apply to him because he was violating a plea agreement that he voluntarily entered into.