Ed's sentencing

[Demosthenes]

His lawyer's request for a downward departure to 361 months:

http://www.redcrayons.net/brown2_238.pdf

[Demosthenes]

My favorite bit:

C. The Defendant Should Receive a Two Point Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility

The Defendant testified in this case. Although he may have been at times surly and disorganized in his testimony he testified truthfully. In fact he admitted essentially every element of each offense when examined by the prosecutor.

[.]

"No shots were fired" says Ed's attorney.

Certainly not because Ed wanted no shots to be fired.

Which is why there will be no departure other than Ed in a pine box after he appropriately expires in prison.

[Nikki]

...
Nonetheless it is also true that the Defendant did not commit the far more serious
crimes that would result had he shot or exploded weapons or made a significant
attempt to harm law enforcement officers or civilians...

It may just be me, but IMHO, placing devices equivalent to claymore mines throughout his porperty seems to be a "significant attempt to harm" someone.

If they were not intended to be used against law enforcement officers or civilians, who is left?

[Gregg]

If they were not intended to be used against law enforcement officers or civilians, who is left?

small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri?

[grixit]

My favorite bit:

C. The Defendant Should Receive a Two Point Reduction for Acceptance of Responsibility

The Defendant testified in this case. Although he may have been at times surly and disorganized in his testimony he testified truthfully. In fact he admitted essentially every element of each offense when examined by the prosecutor.

Um, no. He admitted the acts but he claimed they weren't offenses.

[LPC]

My favorite argument:

B. The Defendant Should Not Receive a Three Point Increase Pursuant to USSG §3C1.3 Because At the Time That the Crimes Set Forth In Counts I, II, V, and VII Were Committed His Release Had Been Revoked

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3 implements the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3147. The statute requires a consecutive sentence of up to ten years for any person who is convicted of an offense “committed while released under this chapter.” The chapter reference is to 18 U.S.C. Ch. 207, the chapter that contains the bail statute. In this case the application of this adjustment is mistaken because the Defendant at the time of the crimes set forth in Counts I, II, V, and VII of the indictment was no longer released under the bail statute. In fact, his release under the bail statute had been terminated by the issuance of a bench warrant when he failed to appear for trial.

Let me get this straight: The statute only applies to crimes committed *before* bail is revoked for violating the terms of the release, but does not apply to crimes committed *after* bail is revoked?

The punishment for doing ONE bad thing (committing a crime after being released on bail) is worse than the punishment for doing TWO bad things (violating the terms of release and then committing a crime)?

The "logic" of Brown's lawyers makes no sense to me whatsoever.

If §3147 is interpreted as suggested in the PSIR then any person who had ever been released under the bail statute would forever be subject to the enhanced penalty provision - even if the case in which the release order was issued had terminated. The three level adjustment suggested in the PSIR should not be sustained.

No, it would just mean that the person released on bail would have to fulfill the conditions of the release, returning to custody when required and being released free from bail, in order for the additional penalty not to apply.

Sheesh.

[fortinbras]

Oddly enough this last argument -- that the offenses were committed after bail was revoked for failure to appear -- admits a very serious offense, namely a fugitive in possession of firearms. Somehow the arithmetic of this alternative finding does not seem to work in Ed's favor.

[Joey Smith]

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/sta ... h-tax.html

[notorial dissent]

Would not Ed's lawyers statements constitute malpractice since they effectively admitted Ed guilty of crimes he was never charged with as an excuse for the ones he was and that he now could be charged with those as well with the attorney's filing as basis?

I, personally, am less than impressed with that effort. I wasn't really expecting much, since there really isn't much to be said to mitigate what Ed did, but that motion just comes across as incredibly lame to my way of thinking.

[wserra]

And what would you guys argue at his sentencing? "Not that" isn't much of an anxwer, unless it continues "Nothing at all".

[Thule]

The "nobody actually got hurt, never mind why"-argument was raised by Elaines lawyer, and she did get a lower sentence than the prosecution called for.

Not that it matters, Ed has wasted the rest of his life.

http://www.redcrayons.net/

[wserra]

The "nobody actually got hurt, never mind why"-argument was raised by Elaines lawyer, and she did get a lower sentence than the prosecution called for.

Yeah. Thirty-five years.

I had an old strip from The Wizard of Id on my bulletin board for years, until it finally fell apart. The convict - a dirty, disheveled guy wearing what looks like a burlap sack - says to the king, "My lawyer promised me a lesser charge". In the next panel, as he is being strapped into The Chair, he is saying, "Big deal - 20,000 volts instead of 40,000".

Not that it matters, Ed has wasted the rest of his life.

A lot like the first part. Elaine was different.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

Would not Ed's lawyers statements constitute malpractice since they effectively admitted Ed guilty of crimes he was never charged with as an excuse for the ones he was and that he now could be charged with those as well with the attorney's filing as basis?

I, personally, am less than impressed with that effort. I wasn't really expecting much, since there really isn't much to be said to mitigate what Ed did, but that motion just comes across as incredibly lame to my way of thinking.

Jeopardy has attached and Ed cannot now be charged by the Fed for any additional crimes for the conduct for which he has already been tried for. The state could go after him, but who cares. There is no argument that will result in Ed walking out of jail at the end of his sentence. The best he could hope for is a wheelchair trip to the county nursing home. The absolute minimum sentence is 361 months, which, with maximum good time, come out to about 25 1/2 years. At his age, he will be 92 years old. I cannot imagine he will get a shorter sentence than Elaine (under the He Who Pours the Kool-Aide is More Responsible than She Who Drinks the Kool-Aide doctrine).

At this point, the whole sentencing process is just theater. My prediction: the Judge hammers his ass, not because it will make a damn bit of difference to Ed, but to communicate to the rest of the Tardasphere that armed resistance to arrest will get you hammered. 40+ years.

[LPC]

The absolute minimum sentence is 361 months, which, with maximum good time, come out to about 25 1/2 years. At his age, he will be 92 years old.

I believe that the new sentence will not even start to run until he finishes his current sentence, for which the projected release date is May 2012, so he's going to be at least 94 or 95 before he's likely to be wheeled out.

[Demosthenes]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

[Tax Man]

http://www.redcrayons.net/

Ed: She was up-and-coming as a dentist and I was up-and-coming as an exterminator.

[notorial dissent]

And what would you guys argue at his sentencing? "Not that" isn't much of an anxwer, unless it continues "Nothing at all".

I do feel a certain amount of sympathy for Ed’s attorney’s, but not much, the old adage about a fool for a client applies here in spades, that being said, I still don’t feel like he did the job he should have been doing, fool or not, and this latest effort just adds to that certainty. As to what he should have done, I personally think, he should have gone for the he didn’t actually hurt anyone, "except himself and his dim followers", and that he is basically a senile old coot who has lost his grip on reality. It has the simplicity of being of being 100% true, puts as pretty a face on something that isn’t pretty at all as is possible, and is a good solid effort whereas the one generated, would to my eyes seem prejudicial to the effort. That being said, I am fairly certain Ed will get everything he deserves, and will more than deserve everything he gets. Ed is a particularly nasty waste of human protoplasm, knew exactly what he was doing, and really did intend a great deal of harm to a great many people, including the wife he supposedly loves, and the less contact he has with the rest of humanity for the remainder of his useless life the better.

[Nikki]

Irrespective of the number of months in Ed's sentence, it WILL be a life sentence.

Ed is such a royal prick that he is certain to wake up some morning in prison and find himself dead.

Unless the BoP authorities place him in extremely protective isolation, he will only have a minor survival chance among the Aryans if he plays nice and keeps his mouth shut. But, he won't so even they will soon grow sick of his ranting and attempts to control everything.

Since Ed has absolutely no value to the other prisoners {no outside contacts of any criminal value, little to no money, no street smarts, etc}, no one has any reason to go out of their way to keep him alive.

[wserra]

As to what he should have done, I personally think, he should have gone for the he didn’t actually hurt anyone, "except himself and his dim followers",

Elaine's line. It got her 35 years. He'll get more.

and that he is basically a senile old coot who has lost his grip on reality.

And when Ed is found competent - the only way he can be sentenced - and takes strenuous objection to saying that, then what will you do? Say it anyway, the wishes of your competent client be damned? What would you then say in answer to his disciplinary complaint against you? "Well, not only did I know better, but he wasn't really competent?"

What else would you do?

Moral: it's a lot easier when you're not the one on the spot.