...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:
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
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Friday, June 04, 2010
Summer time
Professor Rick is finished grading his exams, and is back to blogging. His latest -- on the most recent Supreme Court Miranda case -- is hilarious. Go check it out.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
11th Circuit issues 112 opinion reversing one of its own
The case is United States v. Farley, and I confess that I haven't read the whole thing yet. What struck me is that the court reverses Judge Beverly Martin, the newest member of the 11th Circuit, in an opinion she wrote as a district judge. She held at the district level that a 30-year min/man sentence was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. The 11th Circuit, per Judge Carnes, reversed. This case might have legs to the Supremes...
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Quick news and notes
1. Former Broward School Board member Beverly Gallagher gets 37 months in prison. That was the agreed-to sentence. Here's the Sun-Sentinel article.
2. A bodyguard in the Scott Rothstein case pleads guilty. Here's the Herald article:
A Broward County bodyguard pleaded guilty to conspiring to shred financial records at the behest of Scott Rothstein as the Fort Lauderdale lawyer's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was collapsing last fall.
Enrique Ros, who came to know Rothstein through security work at the former Versace mansion in South Beach, is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 27 on an obstruction of justice charge in Fort Lauderdale federal court.
Ros, 33, of Pembroke Pines, was indicted in March along with business partner Daniel Dromerhauser and reputed Italian Mafia figure Roberto Settineri following an FBI sting operation starring Rothstein. The now-convicted lawyer, facing the heat of a federal investigation into his investment racket, played the lead role as the FBI targeted Settineri and the two businessmen in November.
2. A bodyguard in the Scott Rothstein case pleads guilty. Here's the Herald article:
A Broward County bodyguard pleaded guilty to conspiring to shred financial records at the behest of Scott Rothstein as the Fort Lauderdale lawyer's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was collapsing last fall.
Enrique Ros, who came to know Rothstein through security work at the former Versace mansion in South Beach, is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 27 on an obstruction of justice charge in Fort Lauderdale federal court.
Ros, 33, of Pembroke Pines, was indicted in March along with business partner Daniel Dromerhauser and reputed Italian Mafia figure Roberto Settineri following an FBI sting operation starring Rothstein. The now-convicted lawyer, facing the heat of a federal investigation into his investment racket, played the lead role as the FBI targeted Settineri and the two businessmen in November.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.
“Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
That's the question that Van Chester Thompkins was asked after 3 hours of questioning in which he remained silent. Thompkins said yes and the statement was used to convict him. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that staying quiet for 3 hours wasn't enough to invoke one's right to remain silent. From the NYTimes:
Criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, refining the court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”
Monday’s decision followed two in February that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.
At least the cops offered him a mint:
Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.
While the Supremes are chipping away at Miranda, I see that the 11th reversed a conviction yesterday on a suppression issue. Richard Klugh won the case, United States v. Lance Lall.
That's the question that Van Chester Thompkins was asked after 3 hours of questioning in which he remained silent. Thompkins said yes and the statement was used to convict him. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that staying quiet for 3 hours wasn't enough to invoke one's right to remain silent. From the NYTimes:
Criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, refining the court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”
Monday’s decision followed two in February that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.
At least the cops offered him a mint:
Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.
While the Supremes are chipping away at Miranda, I see that the 11th reversed a conviction yesterday on a suppression issue. Richard Klugh won the case, United States v. Lance Lall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)