Photo: Shutterstock.com

In the case of a man who has spent four years in prison for civil contempt, a federal appeals court has ruled that the maximum penalty for that violation is 18 months.

A split three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ordered the release of Francis Rawls, who is under prosecution for alleged possession of child pornography and was held in contempt for refusing to give investigators his computer password.

Rawl's case centered on whether he is considered a "witness" under 28 U.S.C. § 1826, which states that a "witness in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States refuses without just cause shown to comply with an order of the court to testify or provide other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording or other material, the court, upon such refusal, or when such refusal is duly brought to its attention, may summarily order his confinement at a suitable place until such time as the witness is willing to give such testimony or provide such information … but in no event shall such confinement exceed eighteen months."

Judge Julio Fuentes wrote in the court's Feb. 6 majority opinion that Rawls is a witness under the law.

"Rawls is a witness within the meaning of § 1826(a) both because he is being asked to provide testimonial information and because the statute reaches even nontestimonial acts of production," Fuentes said.

Judge Theodore McKee filed a concurring opinion.

"I join Judge Fuentes' opinion in its entirety. For reasons he explains, I completely agree that a criminal defendant cannot be deprived of statutory and constitutional protections afforded those accused of crimes merely because s/he also happens to be a material witness," McKee said. "Limitations placed upon the government's ability to incarcerate a criminal suspect do not disappear into the ethers merely because that same person is also subject to confinement as a material witness. However, I write separately because I do not think that the government's conduct in prosecuting Rawls should escape additional comment."

He continued, "There may well be some justification for insisting that Rawls be imprisoned on contempt charges before his all but certain prosecution for child pornography and the very severe sentences he would be exposed to if convicted for the latter offenses, but such justification for the government's conduct here certainly escapes me."

Judge Jane Roth, however, disagreed with the majority's reasoning.

"Because I do not agree with the reasoning of the majority or of the concurrence, I respectfully dissent," Roth said. "My dissent is based on my belief that 28 U.S.C. § 1826(a) should be held to cover the situations expressly stated therein: 'any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States.' In this case there is no such proceeding⁠—at least, not so far. For that reason, I believe that we should not stretch a statute to cover a situation that is not included in the language of the statute."

Rawls' federal public defender is Keith Donoghue, who did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania declined to a request for comment.