Original post:
According to this Herald article:
Yikes, a life sentence for this crime... when Rothstein -- the supposed worst of the worst -- gets 50. That seems way too high. What say you?
Meantime, it's the first oral argument without Justice Scalia this morning, in this exclusionary rule case: "Should courts suppress evidence obtained from a suspect after a police officer executes a valid arrest warrant, if the officer first illegally detained the suspect?"
The former chief of the failed Clubs Resorts and Marinas will learn his sentence in a 9:30 a.m. Monday hearing at the Key West federal courthouse. Maximum combined sentences for the counts carry a potential 200 years behind bars, prosecutors wrote in a filing last week.
A life sentence "would be reasonable" for convicted bank-fraud defendant Fred D. "Dave" Clark, former chief of the failed Cay Clubs Resorts and Marinas, federal prosecutors say.
Clark "has repeatedly advanced his view that everyone is to blame for his conduct but himself," prosecutors wrote. The "defendant has exhibited a decades-long pattern of making up his own rules and avoiding responsibility for breaking the law. Until now."
The 11-page sentencing memo describes prison terms in other financial fraud cases, including the 50-year sentence imposed on disgraced Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein.
Clark was convicted Dec. 11 after a five-week retrial, after a jury could not reach a verdict in his first trial.
Federal authorities say Cay Clubs was a $300 million Ponzi scheme.
Yikes, a life sentence for this crime... when Rothstein -- the supposed worst of the worst -- gets 50. That seems way too high. What say you?
Meantime, it's the first oral argument without Justice Scalia this morning, in this exclusionary rule case: "Should courts suppress evidence obtained from a suspect after a police officer executes a valid arrest warrant, if the officer first illegally detained the suspect?"
11 comments:
Take money and lose your life (a life sentence is losing your life)? The sentence does not fit the crime. The "tough on crime" folks will make reasonable arguments on the other side of this. I get that it is a tough balancing act. Life imprisonment for anything short of murder (or the worst serial violent acts just short of murder) is not just.
You're at the top of your game and you win big cases. But practice tip= client's don't want lawyers who say "yikes".
A life sentence for selling a couple of rocks of crack is ok, but not for destroying countless lives for pure greed when you are already more well off than most people in the world?
Rothstein did cooperate, I think otherwise he was looking at life.
A life sentence for selling a couple of rocks of crack isn't just either.
The punishment in corporate big banking for financial crimes that crashed the economy is a promotion, a salary raise, and a big bonus. Choose your profession wisely.
Rumpole, I'd rather have a skilled and talented lawyer who writes a blog using "yikes" than a pretentious state court hack.
40 YEARS YIKES!
Just seems like everyone gets more upset when a banker/lawyer/doctor who had a life of privilege and the ability to keep that life with lawful means gets a huge sentence than when some low-level street dealer who had odds stacked against him from day one gets the same.
I always get the feeling that most "victims" of ponzi schemes know what they are involved in is not completely on the up-and-up.
The exclusionary rule case was actually the second post-Scalia oral argument.
Post a Comment