A couple of misconceptions and an incorrect assumption. First, destruction of evidence. bigswede assumed the deer were still present when the fire was started. I seriously doubt that. Why would hunters waste perfectly good meat? There may have been carcasses and parts left, and those easily could have been destroyed in an intense fire. Additionally, a barn fire and a forest/grass/brush fire are very different animals. A barn is a largely empty structure and the majority of the "fuel" is above the ground. Animals inside would be cooked, even burnt, but might not be incinerated. A brush fire is a ground fire and most of the fuel remains near the ground, where the heat will be more intense and focused.

Second, the Hammonds claimed that the fire was started on their own property. Much of the evidence (maps, charts, etc.) was directed at refuting that claim. The jury clearly believed that the claim was a falsehood.

Third, sentencing is a different process than a trial, which is why "double jeopardy" doesn't apply. The government objected at sentencing to the terms imposed (or else they could not have appealed it), so the resentencing was not a "surprise" to the Hammonds. As I pointed out earlier, they knew when they turned down the plea deal what sentence they were facing. Yes, the judge's deviation was an error, but not criminal.

I have opined that I thought that additional jail time should not have been imposed "in the interest of justice", but in the greater scheme of things (and, frankly, upon further review), it was not "wrong" - indeed it was inevitable. Truthfully, the Hammonds were seeking "special treatment" and didn't get it. Resentencing occurs all the time in the criminal justice system. The basic argument is one of fairness: if one defendant gets special treatment, how is that "fair" to all the other defendants convicted of the same crime? That's how we got into the morass of determinate sentencing in the first place! (Was, perhaps, the light treatment the Hammonds got due to the lightness of their skin, for example?) Mandatory minimum sentences are created precisely because judges can be fickle, biased or unfair in their sentences, and Congress tried to stop that.

A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich