Misleading title. The relevant sentence is this:

> "The prosecution claimed Sanchez moved the zines so they wouldn’t incriminate his wife, who attended a protest outside the Prairieland immigration detention center near Dallas, where a police officer was wounded by gunfire."

The "Texas man" in question was involved in evidence tampering in a case that involved the shooting of a police officer. The title here makes it sound like simply moving paper around is against the law.

It’s still a flimsy basis for the case. He didn’t attend the protest nor even knew about it. The motivation wasn’t proven, it’s all in the prosecution’s head for all we know.

"Involved" the shooting of a police officer in the loosest possible sense. If the guy's wife had any relation at all with the shooting, it would be explicit in the article.

I recommend reading the whole thing to find the relevant bits. The judge says he is sentencing based on thought crime.

> U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said he intended to “send a message to anyone who shares a similar ideology.”

> The following can be attributed to Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern:

    “If prosecutors are correct that Sanchez moved zines because he feared they’d try to use them against his wife, that’s a commentary on prosecutors’ lawlessness, not Sanchez’s. Under the First Amendment, possessing literature cannot be criminal, so what legitimate evidence could he possibly have been concealing? Political zines like those Sanchez possessed are no different from the pro-Revolution pamphlets this country’s founders had in mind when they drafted the First Amendment’s press clause.

    “Sanchez’s case is the latest example of the Trump administration grasping at any legal straws it can to criminalize disfavored ideologies and writings, from conflating dissent with terrorism to deporting immigrants who report on protests or criticize wars the U.S. bankrolls. Americans should not make the mistake of believing Sanchez’s sentence only threatens immigrants, leftists, or so-called Antifa members — they’re just the low-hanging fruit, not the end game.”

I understand your inference but I don't think we know enough to conclude that with the information here, especially judging by other comments.

We don't know if he was truly involved in any kind of evidence tampering, if he was prosecuted for it, or something else.

> was involved in evidence tampering in a case that involved the shooting of a police officer

Did the zines shoot the police officer? Or was the police officer shot with the zines?

Evidence of what?

[dead]