Calling US lawtalkers - Lynne Stewart's case and re-sentencing - is this legit?

Started by Martinus, August 31, 2012, 09:02:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Martinus

August 31, 2012, 09:02:03 AM Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 09:04:32 AM by Martinus
Ok, so recently I came across this rather interesting case I have not heard of before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

It does seem that both her original sentence (in light of the client-attorney privilege) and her resentencing may be viewed as controversial on the face value but since I don't know details I would like to hear what you guys have to say about it.

The Brain

#1
August 31, 2012, 09:04:27 AM
:bleeding: NOTT HOTT
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

The Minsky Moment

#2
August 31, 2012, 10:18:29 AM
She was convicted of passing her client messages from third parties (unrelated to her client's legal defense), so privilege was not an issue. 

Under the US Sentencing Guidelines, Stewart's sentencing guidelines range was 30 years (due in large part to the terrorism enhacement which not surprisingly is very harsh).  The trial judge exercised his discretion to give a non-guidelines sentence, which he set at only 28 months.  The government appealed the sentence (which they are allowed to do) and the appeals court reversed because it found that the trail judge had failed to consider properly certain factors relevant to sentencing, including Stewart's alleged perjurious testimony at trial.

I do think the re-sentence is harsh, but Stewart consistently exercised bad judgment at every stage.  It did not help that she boasted to the press that she didn't break a sweat doing the 28 months.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

dps

#3
August 31, 2012, 10:23:46 AM Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 11:28:39 AM by dps
Privilege doesn't apply, because the charges against her were in regards to communications to third parties. 

EDIT:  beaten to the punch again.

Scipio

#4
August 31, 2012, 11:10:28 AM
She's an idiot.

I'm not bothered by it.
What I speak out of my mouth is the truth.  It burns like fire.
-Jose Canseco

There you go, giving a fuck when it ain't your turn to give a fuck.
-Every cop, The Wire

"It is always good to be known for one's Krapp."
-John Hurt

Barrister

#5
August 31, 2012, 12:14:41 PM
Like almost all US sentences it seems pretty high to me, but absolutely that's an offence.  Defence lawyers are given all kinds of special privileges.  They can walk right into a prison without being searched.  Those privileges are necessary, but open to abuse.  So when they are abused, a fairly strong sentence should be handed down.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

crazy canuck

#6
August 31, 2012, 12:48:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 31, 2012, 12:14:41 PM
Like almost all US sentences it seems pretty high to me, but absolutely that's an offence.  Defence lawyers are given all kinds of special privileges.  They can walk right into a prison without being searched.  Those privileges are necessary, but open to abuse.  So when they are abused, a fairly strong sentence should be handed down.

Agreed.  They will probably teach this as a text book example of a lawyer losing sight of their professional obligations.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions