Files appeal, stays out of prison
Keys’ lawyers file an emergency motion with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (source), allowing Keys to stay out of prison. The request is filed just hours after the federal judge who presided over Keys’ trial and sentencing, US District Judge Mueller denied a similar motion for release pending appeal. Keys’ defense attorney says that because the defacement that occurred at the Times was ultimately corrected from a backup, no damage was actually inflicted.
The damage minimum is a jurisdictional requirement of a CFAA charge. Without damage, there can be no conviction. Courts across the country have denied damage findings even in more extreme cases where files were deleted but recoverable.
An automatic stay has issued in the @MatthewKeysLive case. He will not be reporting to prison today.
— Jay Leiderman (@JayLeidermanLaw) June 15, 2016
Lawyers want no prison time
Keys’ defense lawyers file a 69-page sentencing memorandum, asking the court to impose no prison time at all or go with a “non-custodial sentence.” The filing goes to great lengths to illustrate Keys lengthy history in journalism, going way back to his elementary school days when he edited the school bulletin.
In recent years, Matthew’s sacrifices have paid off in the form of impactful journalism that has received national attention. His stories have encouraged discourse, influenced policy and won the attention and accolades from his peers in the industry, public interest groups and even law enforcement officials…[Keys] faces a far more severe sentence than any member of Lulzsec served. 60 months, which the Government seeks, would be more than any person engaged in hacking crimes during this period—by about double!
Prosecutors seek five years
In a 12-page sentencing briefing, Federal prosecutors ask a judge to impose a sentence of five years against Keys. Prosecutors say:
[Keys’ attack was ] an online version of urging a mob to smash the presses for publishing an unpopular story. [He employed] means that challenge core values of American democracy.
Protests sentencing recommendations
Keys lawyers say that that the pre-sentencing guidelines presented to the court by a probation officer miscalculated the losses to the Times as a result of the Anonymous hack, resulting in an overly harsh potential sentence. Their argument notes that revenge porn pioneer Hunter Moore received only 2.5 years for “far worse and far more harmful behavior” than Keys’. The lawyers also say that the sentencing guidelines have little to do with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was not charged, nor was he convicted of, unauthorized access to a computer and obtaining information, but actually charged with ‘“know[ing].. transmission of a program, information, code, or command, [the result of which] intentionally causes damage without authorization to a protected computer.”
Imposing a sentence of over seven years and roughly $250,000 in speculative restitution is a draconian sentence for a minor occurrence that could have been more appropriately handled by a civil lawsuit instead of three federal felony criminal convictions.