2 ms·

If you read the first paragraph you'll see it spelled out: > a federal judge held him in contempt

• klodolph 6y ago
  And if you read a bit farther, you find the reason why it was limited to 18 months: > After losing that appeal, Rawls raised another challenge: the federal statute that allows judges to hold witnesses in contempt for refusing to testify, passed in 1970, states that "in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months." This limit does not apply if you are not a witness.
  • travmatt 6y ago
    Even if it did, the way we’d find out is a defendant suing the government for their release, and for that case to appeal its way up through the circuits, possibly to the Supreme Court. That appeal process would take years and would probably lose at most of the stages. During this entire time the defendant would be imprisoned.