Found "Not Guilty" - Judge Decides Otherwise and Adds to Sentence - Appeal Rejected

[Londo_Jowo]

The big question for me is why conservative justices in majority who keep inventing new rights for corporations have completely given up on human rights.

Please note that two of the more conservative SCOTUS judges were dissenting the denial in this case. Only Ginsberg joined them, the other liberal judges could care less about the people in this case.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting from denial of certiorari.

 

[drebo]

IT'S MY BODY, MY CHOICE!

amirite?

If that reasoning works for murdering small children, why doesn't it work for drugs?

 

[Moonbeam]

The terror of drugs appeals to the CBD. Being called soft on drugs terrifies more rational politicians.

 

[The Merg]

Judges are given a lot of discretion when it comes to handing out sentences. In many cases it works out in favor for defendants as they don't always need to go by the recommendation of a jury and can sentence people for less. Unfortunately, it can also have the opposite effect.

When it comes to sentencing, factors that were not necessarily allowable during the trial can be considered during the sentence, e.g. a defendant's criminal record generally cannot be mentioned during a trial, but is relevant during the sentencing.

The judge is allowed to take into account (not necessarily rightly, but legally can) other accusations when sentencing someone. And as long as the sentence is within the guidelines allowed by law, the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't matter why the judge determined the jail length.

- Merg

 

[theeedude]

Please note that two of the more conservative SCOTUS judges were dissenting the denial in this case. Only Ginsberg joined them, the other liberal judges could care less about the people in this case.

Where was Roberts? He is the chief justice.

 

[theeedude]

Judges are given a lot of discretion when it comes to handing out sentences. In many cases it works out in favor for defendants as they don't always need to go by the recommendation of a jury and can sentence people for less. Unfortunately, it can also have the opposite effect.

When it comes to sentencing, factors that were not necessarily allowable during the trial can be considered during the sentence, e.g. a defendant's criminal record generally cannot be mentioned during a trial, but is relevant during the sentencing.

The judge is allowed to take into account (not necessarily rightly, but legally can) other accusations when sentencing someone. And as long as the sentence is within the guidelines allowed by law, the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't matter why the judge determined the jail length.

- Merg

That is it should have been nullified by the jury before it ever got to the judge for sentencing. At the very least it would send the prosecutors a message to not waste 8 months of 12 people's lives over a victimless crime next time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Judges are given a lot of discretion when it comes to handing out sentences. In many cases it works out in favor for defendants as they don't always need to go by the recommendation of a jury and can sentence people for less. Unfortunately, it can also have the opposite effect.

When it comes to sentencing, factors that were not necessarily allowable during the trial can be considered during the sentence, e.g. a defendant's criminal record generally cannot be mentioned during a trial, but is relevant during the sentencing.

The judge is allowed to take into account (not necessarily rightly, but legally can) other accusations when sentencing someone. And as long as the sentence is within the guidelines allowed by law, the Supreme Court has said that it doesn't matter why the judge determined the jail length.

- Merg

Except that's not what happened. The Judge pronounced them guilty of a crime with a longer sentence than the actual conviction allowed. You'd be right if the Judge had handed down the max sentence for the verdict handed down by the Jury.

 

[OutHouse]

After having the prosecutor to waste 8 months of their lives over a victim-less crime, they voluntarily wasted 2 months deliberating afterwards?

i could not imagine... that got to be hell for employers

 

[theeedude]

The Roberts Court doesn't have time for protecting the rights of Americans. It's too busy with covering for voter suppression and inventing rights for corporations.
Americans need to inform themselves instead of trusting the courts, and when in doubt, nullify it out.

 

[lopri]

The Merg's post #29 is correct.

SCOTUS takes 1% of the cases that are petitioned. It is not surprising that they did not take a case like this.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Merg's post #29 is correct.

SCOTUS takes 1% of the cases that are petitioned. It is not surprising that they did not take a case like this.

Not at all. As the article points out, the Judge, not the Jury, found them guilty of conspiracy which allowed much longer sentences. It goes well beyond maximum sentencing for the crimes of which they were actually convicted by the Jury.

Apply the same reasoning to a murder case. The jury finds the defendant guilty of manslaughter, but the Judge decides to call it first degree murder as a finding of fact, imposes the death penalty.

In either case, had the Jury wanted the stronger sentence imposed, they would have convicted the defendants on the more serious charges.

It usurps the power of the Jury & of Jury nullification, a very important if seldom used aspect of law dating way back in American & English history-

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=0

 

[BoberFett]

Maybe the defendents should have incorporated, then this SCOTUS would defend their "rights."

Do you ever tire of being a piece of shit?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The Roberts Court doesn't have time for protecting the rights of Americans. It's too busy with covering for voter suppression and inventing rights for corporations.
Americans need to inform themselves instead of trusting the courts, and when in doubt, nullify it out.

Are you saying the Judge Roberts controls the actions of Kagan, Sotomeyer, Kennedy, or Breyer?? Surprising that none of these judges supported accepting this case while Thomas, Ginsberg, and Scalia did. Guess it's not just Roberts that don't protect the rights of people.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Legality is not the arbiter of right and wrong.

 

[Jaskalas]

Legality is not the arbiter of right and wrong.

A Judge going against a Jury is a violation of the law, and of the 5th amendment. It's an egregious violation of everything.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you saying the Judge Roberts controls the actions of Kagan, Sotomeyer, Kennedy, or Breyer?? Surprising that none of these judges supported accepting this case while Thomas, Ginsberg, and Scalia did. Guess it's not just Roberts that don't protect the rights of people.

Quick thing, voting for or against cert doesn't necessarily indicate which way someone would vote. Scalia has historically been very hostile to due process claims.

You can't say either way how any of the justices would have voted based on this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Quick thing, voting for or against cert doesn't necessarily indicate which way someone would vote. Scalia has historically been very hostile to due process claims.

You can't say either way how any of the justices would have voted based on this.

Correct. I suspect that Justices sometimes vote for cert in a strategic manner. If they're confident that the Court would go against their own interpretation, they'll vote against so that there's no definitive ruling, let the argument live to fight another day. Or for it. like the three dissenters, so they can shove any illusion of due process right up our collective bunghole so far that we'll never get it out.

 

[NoStateofMind]

A Judge going against a Jury is a violation of the law, and of the 5th amendment. It's an egregious violation of everything.

Oh I agree. You'll rarely see me on the side of any judge/judicial system unless there is a valid reason (ie. someone has a claim of damage). My above statement was a general one directed at those who hold the law above common sense and respect for the individual(s) Rights. Due process is essential to equality of law IMO and to remove it also removes any legitimacy they may have had.

 

[DrPizza]

I presume that with a trial of that duration, there was a lot more evidence that the jury chose to ignore because it didn't meet their standard formed by watching too much CSI. E.g., "Well, you have proof that they leaned into the undercover officer's car on 10 occassions and sold him drugs. But those 800 pictures of them leaning into other cars? Maybe they're just friendly and were giving people directions. Can you enhance those pics?"

 

[Jhhnn]

I presume that with a trial of that duration, there was a lot more evidence that the jury chose to ignore because it didn't meet their standard formed by watching too much CSI. E.g., "Well, you have proof that they leaned into the undercover officer's car on 10 occassions and sold him drugs. But those 800 pictures of them leaning into other cars? Maybe they're just friendly and were giving people directions. Can you enhance those pics?"

Immaterial speculation.

 

[jackstar7]

Do you ever tire of being a piece of shit?

Nothing seems to slow you down...

 

[The Merg]

Except that's not what happened. The Judge pronounced them guilty of a crime with a longer sentence than the actual conviction allowed. You'd be right if the Judge had handed down the max sentence for the verdict handed down by the Jury.

No. The judge sentenced them because of what he believed to be their role in the guilty charge, but also took into account the charges they were acquitted of, which the judge is allowed to do. As long as the sentencing was within the guidelines for the charge they are convicted of, the defendant has no recourse even if the judge enhances the sentence based on charges they were acquitted of.

- Merg

 

[DrPizza]

Immaterial speculation.

Apparently not, since we know the trial was months long, and the defendents received the harshest penalties available within the sentencing guidelines.

 

[lopri]

No. The judge sentenced them because of what he believed to be their role in the guilty charge, but also took into account the charges they were acquitted of, which the judge is allowed to do. As long as the sentencing was within the guidelines for the charge they are convicted of, the defendant has no recourse even if the judge enhances the sentence based on charges they were acquitted of.

- Merg

To be fair, though, this case is somewhat unusual in that the judge found, by preponderance of evidence, additional sentencing factor that the jury had actually acquitted the defendant of. The judge might have had a really bad day or maybe he has a pervert sense of justice. :|

 

[The Merg]

To be fair, though, this case is somewhat unusual in that the judge found, by preponderance of evidence, additional sentencing factor that the jury had actually acquitted the defendant of. The judge might have had a really bad day or maybe he has a pervert sense of justice. :|

Very true. But that's the thing with sentencing. The judge can consider other factors either not admitted during trial or something a jury dismissed, but as long as the sentencing is within guidelines it does not matter how/why the judge picked the sentence.

- Merg