'At bottom, if you have laws on the books but don't enforce them, many people start to wonder why you have laws on the books,' Strauss said. But in the end, prosecutors determined they had enough evidence to charge the group with seditious conspiracy, and the jury agreed with respect to two defendants, Strauss said. The January 6 attack sparked an internal debate among federal prosecutors over whether the action of right-wing groups accused of plotting the assault amounted to seditious conspiracy.Ī decision to charge the Oath Keepers with sedition was fraught with risk that the jury would not convict. 'You can commit a lot of crimes and you almost necessarily have to commit a lot of crimes up to and on the way to committing seditious conspiracy, but for it to be seditious conspiracy it really has to be against the U.S.,' Strauss said. The judge determined prosecutors had failed to prove that the 'defendants reached a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the United States government.' In 2012, a federal judge dismissed sedition charges against five members of a Michigan-based Christian militia for plotting to kill a police officer and then ambush attendees at his funeral. The government's most recent seditious conspiracy prosecution failed, however. The last time prosecutors successfully applied the statute was in 1995 when Omar Abdel Rahman and nine of his followers were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges in connection with a plot to bomb New York City landmarks. Seditious conspiracy is notoriously hard to prosecute. How rare is a seditious conspiracy prosecution? 'In a literal, legal sense, it isn't the constitutional crime of treason, but it is up there with treason in terms of severity,' Strauss said. Seditious conspiracy is among a handful of crimes related to attempts to overthrow the government, make war against the United States, or unlawfully oppose its authority, said Jordan Strauss, a former federal prosecutor who is now a managing director at Kroll, a security consultancy. government but rather that they plotted to forcibly oppose the authority of the government and prevent the execution of the laws governing the presidential transfer of power. In the Oath Keepers case, the charge was not that they conspired to overthrow the U.S. The federal law under which the Oath Keepers were charged defines seditious conspiracy as two or more people plotting 'to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States …'

Sedition is defined as incitement or advocacy of insurrection against an established authority.

Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more people to commit a crime. Here is what you need to know about seditious conspiracy and the significance of the verdict in the Oath Keepers trial:Įnacted after the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the charge of seditious conspiracy includes two elements: conspiracy and sedition. Three other Oath Keepers tried alongside Rhodes were acquitted of the sedition charge but were found guilty of other changes, including obstruction of an official proceeding.Īll five face at least 20 years in prison. Right-wing Oath Keepers Founder Convicted of Sedition in US Capitol Attack Plot

Penalty for seditious conspiracy