That was Ken Jenne after his pleaded guilty today in federal court.
From the Sun-Sentinel:
Sentencing for Jenne was set for Nov. 16 before U.S. District Court Judge William P. Dimitrouleas at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. Until then, he remains free on $100,000 bond.
Sentencing guidelines in Jenne's plea agreement call for a prison term of 18-24 months, but prosecutors could ask for more, and Jenne's defense could ask for less.``If I give you a higher sentence, that's a chance you take. You understand that, don't you?'' Dimitrouleas asked.``Yes, your honor,'' Jenne replied.
This passage struck me:
Ever the politician, Jenne, 60, chatted amiably with the chief prosecutor, Michael "Pat" Sullivan, minutes before his morning court appearance."Good seeing you," Jenne told Sullivan, patting him on the arm. Jenne appeared stoic, dressed in a navy blue pinstripe suit.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Ken Jenne
The media is all over Ken Jenne's plea today.
High-profile defendants always bring with them the question of whether they should get more time because of deterrence and because they owed a greater duty to society and so on. Or should they get a lower sentence because of all the good work they have done for society? Should the court take into account that the time in prison will be more difficult for a high profile defendant? These questions seem particularly relevant when it's a police officer defendant.
So what say you SDFLA readers? If you were judge, what would your sentence be for Jenne. A guideline sentence of 18-24 months? More? Less?
High-profile defendants always bring with them the question of whether they should get more time because of deterrence and because they owed a greater duty to society and so on. Or should they get a lower sentence because of all the good work they have done for society? Should the court take into account that the time in prison will be more difficult for a high profile defendant? These questions seem particularly relevant when it's a police officer defendant.
So what say you SDFLA readers? If you were judge, what would your sentence be for Jenne. A guideline sentence of 18-24 months? More? Less?
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Ken Jenne plea agreement and information
Here's the plea agreement and the information (courtesy of the Miami Herald).
A couple interesting facts:
1. The case drew Judge William Dimitrouleas, a Clinton (corrected from original post) appointee. Before getting appointed, Judge D (as he is known in this District) was a state public defender (for two years), a state prosecutor (for 12 years), and a state judge (for ten years). In other words, he knows Jenne well. How this will cut is anyone's guess.
2. The plea agreement calls for an advisory guideline range of 18-24 months. Many plea agreements do not set forth how the guidelines are calculated, but this one does in (complicated) detail.
3. Former U.S. Attorney Tom Scott, along with David Bogenschutz, signed the plea agreement as Jenne's lawyers.
4. Both sides reserved the right to argue for sentences different than the guidelines. Sometimes defendants and prosecutors will agree that the guidelines will apply and sometimes the defense reserves the right to argue for a lower sentence. In this case, the defense reserved its right to argue for a lower sentence and the prosecution reserved the right to argue for a higher sentence.
A couple interesting facts:
1. The case drew Judge William Dimitrouleas, a Clinton (corrected from original post) appointee. Before getting appointed, Judge D (as he is known in this District) was a state public defender (for two years), a state prosecutor (for 12 years), and a state judge (for ten years). In other words, he knows Jenne well. How this will cut is anyone's guess.
2. The plea agreement calls for an advisory guideline range of 18-24 months. Many plea agreements do not set forth how the guidelines are calculated, but this one does in (complicated) detail.
3. Former U.S. Attorney Tom Scott, along with David Bogenschutz, signed the plea agreement as Jenne's lawyers.
4. Both sides reserved the right to argue for sentences different than the guidelines. Sometimes defendants and prosecutors will agree that the guidelines will apply and sometimes the defense reserves the right to argue for a lower sentence. In this case, the defense reserved its right to argue for a lower sentence and the prosecution reserved the right to argue for a higher sentence.
Ken Jenne resigns, will plead guilty
From the Miami Herald:
Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne -- at one time the county's most powerful politician -- has resigned and agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges involving tens of thousands of dollars he allegedly received from sheriff's office contractors and employees, sources said Tuesday.
After months of personal anguish, Jenne decided Monday to cut the plea deal on tax evasion and other felony charges to limit his prison time because he also was staring at an imminent grand jury indictment on more serious fraud and money-laundering offenses, sources said.
The U.S. attorney's office plans to file the charges, plea agreement and proffer statement involving the allegations against Jenne on Tuesday in federal court in Fort Lauderdale. The plea agreement means Jenne, who earned $169,800 a year as sheriff, will surrender to authorities to face tax-evasion related charges as early as Tuesday afternoon.
Jenne will likely serve some prison time -- possibly between one and two years -- and have to pay back taxes and fines to the Internal Revenue Service, sources said.
Jenne, a lawyer who spent most of his life in public service, also will likely lose his Florida Bar license and sheriff's pension because of the felony conviction. His pension is estimated to be about $125,000 a year. In the plea, Jenne is expected to admit to abusing the public trust, sources said, a concession that will hurt his post-conviction effort to save his pension.
More commentary to follow once we see the plea agreement and the information. For now, here's his resignation letter to the Governor.
Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne -- at one time the county's most powerful politician -- has resigned and agreed to plead guilty to federal corruption charges involving tens of thousands of dollars he allegedly received from sheriff's office contractors and employees, sources said Tuesday.
After months of personal anguish, Jenne decided Monday to cut the plea deal on tax evasion and other felony charges to limit his prison time because he also was staring at an imminent grand jury indictment on more serious fraud and money-laundering offenses, sources said.
The U.S. attorney's office plans to file the charges, plea agreement and proffer statement involving the allegations against Jenne on Tuesday in federal court in Fort Lauderdale. The plea agreement means Jenne, who earned $169,800 a year as sheriff, will surrender to authorities to face tax-evasion related charges as early as Tuesday afternoon.
Jenne will likely serve some prison time -- possibly between one and two years -- and have to pay back taxes and fines to the Internal Revenue Service, sources said.
Jenne, a lawyer who spent most of his life in public service, also will likely lose his Florida Bar license and sheriff's pension because of the felony conviction. His pension is estimated to be about $125,000 a year. In the plea, Jenne is expected to admit to abusing the public trust, sources said, a concession that will hurt his post-conviction effort to save his pension.
More commentary to follow once we see the plea agreement and the information. For now, here's his resignation letter to the Governor.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tom Scott in the house....
Ken Jenne has put together quite a legal team. His lawyer is well-respected David Bogenschutz . BSO is represented by former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and Michael Tein. And now, Jenne has added former U.S. Attorney Tom Scott (pictured here on the left by the Miami Herald, Bogenschutz on the right, and Jenne bottom left insert; article here).
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
SDFLA criminal stats
The numbers are in. Criminal prosecutions are up 10% from last year, but still down significantly from 9-11. Vanessa Blum reports on the stats here:
At the current rate, the number of prosecutions in 2007 will be down roughly 12 percent from 2002, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research organization affiliated with Syracuse University.
Federal prosecutors in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit and Boston areas have seen even larger decreases in criminal filings over that period.
In this region, covering Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and six other counties, the number of drug cases has fallen dramatically, sliding from 1,461 in 2002 to 883 in 2006, according to the Syracuse group. As of April 2007, the seventh month of the fiscal year, prosecutors had filed roughly 580 drug-related cases, on track to surpass the 2006 figure but well below the 2001 prosecutions.
U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta: "When resources become limited, you have to prioritize." He added that the office is on its way to a record year for prosecutions targeting gang crime, illegal guns and health care fraud.The number of immigration cases is also rising, from about 300 in 2002 to 500 expected in 2007.
At the current rate, the number of prosecutions in 2007 will be down roughly 12 percent from 2002, according to data analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research organization affiliated with Syracuse University.
Federal prosecutors in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit and Boston areas have seen even larger decreases in criminal filings over that period.
In this region, covering Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and six other counties, the number of drug cases has fallen dramatically, sliding from 1,461 in 2002 to 883 in 2006, according to the Syracuse group. As of April 2007, the seventh month of the fiscal year, prosecutors had filed roughly 580 drug-related cases, on track to surpass the 2006 figure but well below the 2001 prosecutions.
U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta: "When resources become limited, you have to prioritize." He added that the office is on its way to a record year for prosecutions targeting gang crime, illegal guns and health care fraud.The number of immigration cases is also rising, from about 300 in 2002 to 500 expected in 2007.
Whoooops!
The WSJ blog has a story about Alberto Gonzales's resignation letter, which has a major grammatical mistake:
It has always been my honor to serve at your pleasure. After much thought and consideration, I believe this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.
From the WSJ:
The mistake: “My family and I” should be “my family and me.” WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin, who first pointed out Gonzo’s error to us yesterday afternoon, suspects it privately will delight the attorney general’s critics, who snicker at the sloppy way Gonzales ended his tenure. Such errors may be common in everyday speech, but perhaps they don’t belong in carefully deliberated public letters from cabinet officers to the president. So, Law Blog readers, what does Gonzales’s grammatical lapse symbolize: slipping of standards at DOJ, a rare common touch in official Washington, or, well, just a negligible gaffe?
How embarrassing!
Maybe Rumpole is A.G., as he often makes similar grammar gaffes on his blog...
It has always been my honor to serve at your pleasure. After much thought and consideration, I believe this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.
From the WSJ:
The mistake: “My family and I” should be “my family and me.” WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin, who first pointed out Gonzo’s error to us yesterday afternoon, suspects it privately will delight the attorney general’s critics, who snicker at the sloppy way Gonzales ended his tenure. Such errors may be common in everyday speech, but perhaps they don’t belong in carefully deliberated public letters from cabinet officers to the president. So, Law Blog readers, what does Gonzales’s grammatical lapse symbolize: slipping of standards at DOJ, a rare common touch in official Washington, or, well, just a negligible gaffe?
How embarrassing!
Maybe Rumpole is A.G., as he often makes similar grammar gaffes on his blog...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)