> the guy was held for the maximum contempt length possible because the evidence was so strong He was held for nearly 3 times the maximum contempt length becau

> the guy was held for the maximum contempt length possible because the evidence was so strong He was held for nearly 3 times the maximum contempt length because prosecutors argued he was not a witness even when they were holding in contempt for his refusal to give testimony. It's also in contradiction of existing precedence [1]. If you have a safe locked with a key, the government can demand you give them the key if it's in your possession. A safe locked with a combination, the government cannot ask you to produce the code. And to be clear, there's probably enough evidence to convict even without the contents of the encrypted drives. But that makes the imprisonment on contempt even more dubious: they don't need these contents and the defendant attempted to decrypt the drives and failed (intentionally or not, we can't know without a mind-reading device). 1. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20court%2C%20while,to%20that%20safe%20would%20not https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10416#:~:....