Q for CE&P lawyers, Stone sentencing question

[4speedy]

I am wondering about the sentencing of Stone next week in light of the prosecutors resigning.  Is there any repercussions to the judge if he does not follow the sentencing recommendation that was subsequently submitted by Barr?  Could he be removed from office or is his job safe?  Is there any reason why he couldn’t just decide to go with the tougher sentencing as submitted by the original prosecutors?  I mean, I understand that if he does that, we all know Trump will just pardon Stone but the judge can at least still make a point, right?

[carmenere]

SHE! is a federal district court judge. In theory it’s a lifetime appointment and she can only be removed by impeachment, but I wouldn’t put it past Trump and his cronies to try something.

[AAM2012]

Feb 17, 2020 19:19:50 GMT -5 carmenere said:

SHE! is a federal district court judge. In theory it’s a lifetime appointment and she can only be removed by impeachment, but I wouldn’t put it past Trump and his cronies to try something.

Love. Love. Love!!! The call out about her..

[biscoffcookies]

Prosecutors can only recommend a sentence. In addition to the requests from the prosecutor and defense, the judge will also get a Pre-Sentence Report prepared by pre-trial/probation services, which is impartial, in which they will explain what they think the sentencing guidelines should be and give some background on Stone. The judge takes all this and decides what sentence is "sufficient, but no greater than necessary" to serve the various purposes in sentencing found in Federal law. She can go lower or higher than the recommendations.

Sentences imposed are reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal, which means it is REALLY hard to get them reversed, especially if the sentencing judge does a good job explaining her rationale (unless you can show the judge made legal error of some kind, then it's different).

So in conclusion, yes, the judge could totally throw the book at Stone if she wanted with very little ramification for her professionally. (personally of course she will get attacks from the President and his minions, which is no small thing.)

Signed, used to prosecute cases in Federal court

[dutchgirl678]

The judge has scheduled a phone interview for Tuesday with both sides. Not sure if the four prosecutors will be participating who withdrew from the case last week.

www.politico.com/news/2020/02/16/judge-phone-hearing-roger-stone-case-115620

[carmenere]

Feb 17, 2020 23:58:11 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Prosecutors can only recommend a sentence. In addition to the requests from the prosecutor and defense, the judge will also get a Pre-Sentence Report prepared by pre-trial/probation services, which is impartial, in which they will explain what they think the sentencing guidelines should be and give some background on Stone. The judge takes all this and decides what sentence is "sufficient, but no greater than necessary" to serve the various purposes in sentencing found in Federal law. She can go lower or higher than the recommendations.

Sentences imposed are reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal, which means it is REALLY hard to get them reversed, especially if the sentencing judge does a good job explaining her rationale (unless you can show the judge made legal error of some kind, then it's different).

So in conclusion, yes, the judge could totally throw the book at Stone if she wanted with very little ramification for her professionally. (personally of course she will get attacks from the President and his minions, which is no small thing.)

Signed, used to prosecute cases in Federal court

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how fucked up is it that a judge can't just do her fucking job without threats from the deplorables. I know she's a badass who isn't easily intimidated but I really worry for her safety.

[aliciabella]

Feb 18, 2020 8:27:36 GMT -5 carmenere said:

Feb 17, 2020 23:58:11 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Prosecutors can only recommend a sentence. In addition to the requests from the prosecutor and defense, the judge will also get a Pre-Sentence Report prepared by pre-trial/probation services, which is impartial, in which they will explain what they think the sentencing guidelines should be and give some background on Stone. The judge takes all this and decides what sentence is "sufficient, but no greater than necessary" to serve the various purposes in sentencing found in Federal law. She can go lower or higher than the recommendations.

Sentences imposed are reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal, which means it is REALLY hard to get them reversed, especially if the sentencing judge does a good job explaining her rationale (unless you can show the judge made legal error of some kind, then it's different).

So in conclusion, yes, the judge could totally throw the book at Stone if she wanted with very little ramification for her professionally. (personally of course she will get attacks from the President and his minions, which is no small thing.)

Signed, used to prosecute cases in Federal court

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how fucked up is it that a judge can't just do her fucking job without threats from the deplorables. I know she's a badass who isn't easily intimidated but I really worry for her safety.

It is also called obstruction of justice but apparently that doesn't apply to orange-ass.

The question was pretty much answered above but ultimately all sentences are up to judges. The DAs make recommendations along with any pre-sentencing reports submitted with their recommendations. The defense will argue what they feel is a fair and appropriate and their reasoning for it. The judge will also weigh any mitigating or aggravating factors which would move the standard sentencing guidelines up or down. Each defendant also has the right to file for a reconsideration of sentence.

This whole thing is so fucking infuriating and just another example of how being a rich white man benefits from being said rich white man

[Pibs]

I feel like all of the pardons today are a form of judge intimidation. Like, "You can conference and discuss all you want but me and my little cheeto orange mushroom dick are going to undo your decision out of sheer pettiness."

[suzyp]

Feb 18, 2020 22:36:35 GMT -5 Pibs said:

I feel like all of the pardons today are a form of judge intimidation. Like, "You can conference and discuss all you want but me and my little cheeto orange mushroom dick are going to undo your decision out of sheer pettiness."

That's exactly what they are. They're also to normalize them. It's ridiculous