Sunday, June 06, 2010

Scott Rothstein asks Judge Cohn for 30 years...

...and I'm a bit surprised. I thought he'd ask for less. The PSI calls for life (a level 52), but the statutory maximum is 100 years. Rothstein will be 48 the day after his sentencing this week.

Here's his sentencing memo (by Mark Nurik):

Rothstein Sentencing Memo Rothstein himself wrote a 12-page letter to Judge Cohn, asking for leniency, "[b]ut I do not feel sorry for myself nor do I want anyone's sympathy. I deserve and expect the punishment I will receive. What I am deeply and sincerely sorry for is the horrific pain and harm I have inflicted on so many people."

There were also some letters filed on his behalf, one by his parents, but missing was one from his wife Kim Rothstein.

So here you go readers:

What will Judge Cohn sentence Scott Rothstein to this week?
30 years
35-40 years
40-50 years
100 years, the stat max free polls


Rumpole said...

David- I'm a big believer in factoring age into sentencing. So this issue is should Rothstein ever get out? At age 48 with a 30 year sentence it is less than 50/50 he would survive to get out. And do we really need to incarcerate non-violent people into their late 70's?

At the rare times my clients appear for sentencing, I also try and get judges to look at it another way- by working backwards. So- if Rothstein was sent to prison in 1990 for these crimes and got out today, would that be sufficient? That would be 20 years. If it were 30 he would have to have been sentenced in 1980- when Ronald Reagan was president. That seems excessive to me.

I think with his cooperation that 20 years is sufficient. His crimes were bad- but unlike Madoff we don't see the poor widows and destitute families losing their homes over this ponzi scheme. For me 20, or 22 or 23 is enough time for this.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised he's asking for 30 years. Putting aside the media hoopla, he defrauded a small group of wealthy people... several of whom likely suspected it was a ponzi-style operation but invested anyway. He did not pilfer money from average investors. If it wasn't such a media story, I could see 12-15 years being appropriate.

Anonymous said...

I would say 40 years is excessive... but the defendant DID forge multiple judicial signatures. At some point, you have to send a message and protect the system. Also, id the defendant was "only" 30 when he committed these crimes then a 40 year sentence would be "ok?" That hardly seems fair.