I don't know why it didn't occur to me to consider the timing of this challenge to mandatory minimum sentences.
Anyway…
White-Collar Prison Terms Under Debate
Determining the length of punishment is far from an exact science, and the standards may be changing
By Jonathan Peterson
Times Staff Writer
July 11, 2004
In late May, a 38-year-old Houston accountant and lawyer named Jamie Olis said goodbye to his wife and baby daughter and moved into a 79-square-foot cell at the Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas.
It might be his home until 2028.
"I take no pleasure in sentencing you to 292 months," U.S. District Judge Simeon Lake told the Dynegy Inc. executive as he handed down the sternest penalty yet in the post-Enron crackdown on corporate crime. "But my job is to follow the law."
Yet what it means for judges to follow the law in punishing white-collar defendants has suddenly been tossed into limbo. A recent Supreme Court decision has cast doubt on the legality of the guidelines that determine federal sentences. That development could affect individuals convicted in the Justice Department's campaign against corporate fraud — a crackdown punctuated by last week's indictment of former Enron Corp. Chairman Kenneth L. Lay.
Under the guidelines, a judge's calculation of investors' financial losses has largely determined the length of punishment. Late last month, the Supreme Court appeared to torpedo that approach, ruling that the facts used in sentencing must be considered by juries — and not judges alone — and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
"That is a difficult standard, and unlikely to be met," said Kirby Behre, a former U.S. prosecutor and coauthor of a book on federal sentencing for business crimes.
The Supreme Court case involved a crime far different from the kind Olis was convicted of.
The justices overturned an extra three years in prison given to a Washington state man who had kidnapped his estranged wife and their son. The trial judge had determined that the kidnapper displayed "deliberate cruelty" and therefore deserved prison time beyond the maximum 53 months set by the state's sentencing guidelines.
But the Supreme Court said it was up to a jury to decide all aspects of a person's guilt — a finding that many lawyers and court watchers believe extends to federal white-collar cases as well.
Posted by P6 at July 11, 2004 08:28 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/5448
Comments
With todays atittude towards corporate crime, I wonder if this means juries will hand down longer sentences, or if the lawyers are now going to work harder at getting just corporate types on juries.
Somehow, I think the Supreme Court made a big error on this one.
Posted by Rook at July 12, 2004 09:55 AMWhat it actually does is almost totally prevent evidence of, what would you call it, reverse extenuation circumstances from increasing the sentance a white collar criminal would receive.