Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Sentencing question

So will the Liberty City 7 6 5 get more or less time than Jose Padilla? Remember that Judge Cooke sentenced Padilla to 17 years and his co-defendants to less time. (The over-under line was 20 years). Certainly the Liberty City defendants will be citing to Padilla's case and arguing that they should get way less time. We'll set the over-under in this case at 17 years, the same sentence that Padilla received, for the lead defendant. What do you all think the appropriate sentences are now that they have been convicted?
at

7 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:03 AM

    I think the proper sentence is an apology to these defendants for wasting everyone's time on this silly case.

    And the discussion of whether they will get less or around the same time as Padilla can end here. Padilla was in front of Judge Cooke. This case, well, this case isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:32 AM

    Dear Mr. Markus,

    I need some help from your readers. On Friday, I will be in Hollywood pitching an idea for a new reality show. The working title is “Who Wants To Be On The Supreme Court?” It will be a Survivor type show with the winner being nominated by Obama and confirmed to replace Justice Souter.

    I’m thinking of Rahm Emanuel for the host. As for the contestants, we will use the top shortlisters: Sotomayor, Wood, Kagan, Karlan, Garland, and Granholm. We would also have other Judges on the island: Edith Jones, Edward Carnes, and Alex Kozinski are some of the names under consideration. Finally, we would have ordinary citizens because as you know you do not have to be a lawyer to be on the Court.

    What I need from your readers is a suggestion as to the tasks and tests the contestants should perform to win this coveted nomination. The winner receives a salary of $217,400 per year and life tenure. Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:05 AM

    Love this blog . . . keeps me up to date with the happenings of the "federal" world! Just wanted to ask that you keep us in the loop re: process of selecting new federal judge and new US Attorney . . . looking forward to CHANGE . . . but its hard to find out what is going on when your not in the know . . . Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous1:35 PM

    Do people actually use the words "your" and "you're" interchangeably because they don't think it matters too much? Or did they not graduate from the third grade? Seriously, this is making me pull my hair out. I just hope these are not attorneys because they would be embarrassing the Bar. David, maybe you should eliminate the "anonymous" option again so we can root out the imbeciles.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:54 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:12 PM

    Court: Miami-Dade public defenders can't reject felony cases
    BY DAVID OVALLE


    An appeals court has reversed a trial judge's decision to allow the Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office to stop handling new third-degree felony cases on the claim its ranks are overworked, understaffed and underfunded.

    ''There is simply insufficient evidence to support such a drastic remedy,'' Third District Court of Appeal justices wrote in a unanimous decision released Wednesday.

    Justice Frank Shepherd, in a concurring opinion, was harsher.

    He called the public defender's effort ``nothing more than a political question masquerading as a lawsuit.''

    The office of Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos J. Martinez, with about 183 lawyers, represents poor defendants who can't afford to hire private attorneys. Last June, the office sought to decline all new noncapital felony cases, saying its overworked lawyers could no longer responsibly represent clients.

    In September, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Stanford Blake ruled the office could refuse new third-degree felonies -- charges that include battery, marijuana possession and grand theft auto. Critics said the move would cost taxpayers more down the road.

    The appeals court put Blake's decision on hold while it mulled an appeal by state prosecutors, who maintained the ruling violated state law and that Martinez hadn't proved the indigent were getting poor legal help.

    The appeals justices agreed.

    Wednesday's decision noted that the public defender's office did not prove that its clients were getting insufficient legal assistance.

    ''Nor do we believe this could have been proven in the aggregate, simply based on caseload averages and anecdotal testimony,'' the court ruled.

    The appeals courts added that the court system was not the place for a battle over funds and workloads.

    ''The office-wide solution to the problem, however, lies with the Legislature or the internal administration of [the Miami-Dade Public Defender's Office],'' the justices wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:35 PM

    Why hasn't Markus posted about Mike Tein's quote in the Times today? David you're dropping the ball!

    ReplyDelete