Today, two people will be sentenced for killing innocent others. One person will have made a series of very bad decisions while intoxicated ending in her killing a young girl age 11. The other will have made a conscious decision to kill 11 people. The former will receive a sentence of 12 years in jail. The latter will be released after only doing 8 years while he awaited sentence. The former is a young mother of a pre-teen girl, the latter was a mob hitman. The former, the mom who killed an 11 year old by driving recklessly while intoxicated, spawned a law that makes it a felony to drive intoxicated with a child in the car. The latter Mob hit-man will reinforce the idea that you can kill at will as long as you are willing to give up others, even if you lie to do it.
The young mother is Carmen Huertas. She made a decision to get into a car with 6 children (one was her own) and drive them home from a slumber party after she had embibed enough alcohol to blow a .13 BAC. (Not that I think BAC's are the least bit accurate but given her other behaviors that night I would think there was enough other evidence of intoxication to prove she was guilty. You can read the story here and decide for yourself. She was sentenced to a indeterminate sentence of 4-12 years in jail. She could theoretically be eligible to get out on parole in three years and five months
but given just the fact that this was a DWI and the fact that it was the type of death that brings out everyone against the defendant, she will likely do the whole sentence before she is released less any "good-time" she may accrue (about 1.8 years off the top number or 10.4 years in prison so far.)
The mob hit man is Sal (Good Looking Sal) Vitale, former underboss of the Bonanno crime family. Sal was an early follower of another neighbor Joe (Big Joe) Massino, the boss of the Bonnano crime family. Both men grew up in my old neighborhood in NY. Sal was always noted for how good his hair looked. I should know, he used to go to get his hair cut in the same barbershop as I did. He was a big deal there among the Italian barbers. They all knew who he was. I blissfully did not. I did notice he seemed like any other guy who went there. Slightly pampered and otherwise kind of nice. He always went with friends.
About 10 years ago, Sal and his Brother-in-law childhood hero Joe Massino got indicted. Joe was pretty jealous of Sal's popularity among the other under bosses in "the family". He was afraid that Sal may be so much better liked than he, that he ordered someone kill him. The feds moved in to save Sal's life. Sal was infuriated and so he turned on Joe and everyone in the old life. He had enough information to identify over 500 men as either members of or affiliates to the five families of NY. He also had enough information to put 50 of these men behind bars for a long time, some even for life.
Sal Vitale was a cold blooded killer. He didn't have to be. He had smarts. He was a former corrections officer, and he owned a series of small businesses that would have made money for him with or without patronage from Joe Massino and company. Instead, he helped end the lives of at least 11 men and maybe more. He made it possible for others to kill without being punished. He ran loan-sharking and illegal gambling operations. He provided protection for drug dealers and houses of Prostitution. He also however danced to the Governments tune. He turned and he will be rewarded. Is he sorry he was a creep, a killer, a monster? Only he knows. He knew however he created that man. If he could, would he turn down the life he led? Would he walk away from the jaunts to Vegas and Atlantic City? Would he give up his house in Dix Hills for all those years. Would he not have had the fancy haircuts and manicures he got that earned him the nickname "Good looking Sal"? If he knew he would never get caught would he? Or would he have preserved that life even if it meant killing eleven more people. Eleven more fathers brothers sons?
Carmen Huertas, a 31 year old mother who would like to take back about 2 hours of her life. Whether she was found guilty or not, the taking of that child's life would have stayed with her forever. Her chance of ever getting behind the wheel of a car drunk again, would be less than zero.
Jail is supposed to be for punishment and corrections. I fail to see the sense in this today. Carmen Huertas should have been sentenced to 1-3 years and should have been ordered to a program to address her drinking issues. Sal Vitale should have been sentenced to at least a long long period in jail. He could have gotten Death had he not cooperated. His getting a free pass calls into question every detail to which he testified. His testimony was bought and paid for by the government. He knew if he danced to their tune he would walk away, a free man, new identity, new home, new business.
As she addressed the court she said ""I am not a monster," "I am a loving mother who made a terrible decision that caused the death of a wonderful child."
She is right, her behavior was monstrous, but she herself is not a monster she just in fact made a horrendous decision that will forever effect the world of Leandra's family and her own.
Does anyone wonder if Sal Vitale could make the same statement? Is it fair that the prosecution can make these decisions based on how much they were helped? Is it fair that Vitale's victims should get nothing in the way of satisfaction for the loss they suffered?
Huertas is in jail, mostly because of who her victim was, and what that victims family wanted. Vitale is free despite what his victims want and despite what fairness dictates. She is sorry. Given the chance she would not be likely to repeat her poor judgment. He, well you decide: is he sorry or sorry he got caught? Given the chance, would he have turned down all the things his life gave to him and his family or would he have killed again and again, knowing he would never get caught?
The lives of poor people and the lives of rich have different values in a court of law. The lives of people who die at the hands of those that can give the prosecution what it wants, and the lives of those killed by someone who has nothing but remorse to give, have different values. Neither of these are fair, they just are.
If you ever serve on a jury however, when one of these rich powerful guys testifies, and he says he is not getting anything for his testimony, remember, that is just not true. Never was, never will be. They are just monsters who the government is paying to be tell they government's story, whether it be true, or not. Whether they be monsters... or what?
Here is the NY Post's coverage of the sentencing hot off the presses.
Showing posts with label Sentencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sentencing. Show all posts
Should Lindsey Lohan Go To Jail? Why This Celebrity Means Something To You.
There is a debate raging over at my favorite blog the ABA News today over what should happen to "poor little Lindsey Lohan". For the uninitiated, She has been in two drug related DWI's she has completely destroyed her probations and she has been sentenced to 90 days in jail and rehab. She then fired her attorney (yes it must be their fault that you are a F.U. and need to be ib jail the way fish need to be in water)and demands that she get a "pro bono" lawyer. Her rep said she had already paid for two lawyers and now the government should pay.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
She is pathetic but aside from that, should Lindsey go to jail and for how long. You may be wondering why I care. I suggest to you that we should all care. Not only about Lohan, but Gibson, and Spears and a number of other A-list stars who while the tabloids make them fodder, corrupt our corrections and criminal justice systems.
Hat tip: ABA New Now
Look, in our system, “punishment is not meant to fit the crime” it is meant to fit the criminal. Despite the BS from “victim advocates” Corrections is about correcting. It costs us way too much money to incarcerate people who do bad things but whom we can handle in other ways.
I get really frustrated every time I hear a crime victim cry out for jail time. You want jail time, you pay for it. I only want jail when it is needed to get the person back into life and being a productive tax paying entity. I don't like crime and I feel bad for victims but not at the expense of my family and yours. Restitution and knowing that the perpetrator is being addressed so as to reduce the chance someone else will suffer, is all that a criminal justice system owes to the victim. If they want more, they can avail themselves of the civil Justice system. The Criminal Justice system owes me and you however a corrected and useful member of society. A person who can carry their own weight without again becoming part of the system again. It owes us some semblance of safety as well. Lohan is not a mass murderer, though she has been lucky not to take a life. If we incarcerate her without getting her help, she just comes out an older addict just as likely to re-offend and kill or maim someone. Hence Jail for Jail’s sake is a waste of my tax money and everyone's time. I abhor such waste especially by government.
Lohan is not just a person, she is a product. Just like Mel Gibson and Britney. Because of them, many people have jobs. Many more will have jobs and those people pay taxes and help an economy that we all rely on. Staff, record company employees, ticket takers and pop corn salesmen, people who clean up stadiums and offices, parking attendants, all have jobs because of people like these. So do the folks who feed these other people (like the lawyers who serve those people) (not the stars but the help staffs and others)need them working. Who gets really screwed in a baseball strike? The vendors and the fans. The superstars come out just fine. It is very much a butterfly effect. We need to remember this
I suggest more jail is needed for Lohan, not because I want to see her in jail, but because she is an addict and has an addict’s view of the world that needs to be addressed before she can begin to become productive. Until she is brought to bottom, she will not be receptive to the help available to her. She still see’s it as being all about poor little Lindsey. When it becomes about “look what I am doing to all those that depend on me, all those who believe in me, my fans family (as it is constituted) etc, that is when she will begin to be ready to get the help she needs.
Madoff's Fools Get Vengeance at Taxpayer's Expense...Why the Madoff Sentence is Unfair to the Rest of US
Denny Chin an otherwise pretty good judge really screwed the rest of the people that Wall Street cheat Bernie Madoff didn't screw over. By sentencing Madoff to 150 years, Madoff now spends the rest of his life living off the public. We take care of his room and board not to mention his health till he eventually meets the true God of Justice. How is this fair???
Look. Madoff was one of the worst (or best I guess) swindlers in history. However, the people he swindled, wanted to be swindled. They did nothing to investigate his "success" they only wanted his big gains.
The more he delivered, the more they delivered. While the market was tanking, Bernie was paying off. Didn't they wonder how? Did they really believe he was infallible?? Why should their bad investment now cost the rest of us over 50K a year?
Look I am not advocating for a soft sentence for Madoff, but it costs thousands more to imprison an older person than a young one. Health care being what it is, he will be treated better than 15% of Americans, on our dime!! Couldn't a message have been just as well sent to senior citizens who commit crimes that we will take back all your money and stick you in jail for your last few decent years and then throw you back on your family when you are about to rot over?
Why do I and most of my friends and colleagues have to worry about taking care of our elderly parents when his kids besot with illegally gained funds since their early years get to know they won't have to part with a freaking penny to take care of the old cheat who helped them get their money??
Lest you think I am alone in this thought, none other than Professor Steven Bainbridge appears to agrees.
Sorry Judge, you made a bad error. First, no one is deterred from crime by jail, criminals do not think they are ever going to get caught. (By the by, most investors who get into scams also do not believe that their scam is a scam and that they will be ripped off...)
Second, you sentenced the rest of the taxpaying part of America all because a bunch of supposedly savvy investors weren't so savvy and made a bad deal. Maybe all these so called investors who now feel that they are somewhat vindicated ought to pay for his stay in the Federal prison. After all, if putting him in jail for the rest of his life is supposed to vindicate them, they ought to pay for it.
I have been cheated, more than once. Mostly by people who promise to pay bills and then don't or can't. The government doesn't bail me out nor does it go around and claw back money for my fees. No one puts those that cheat me in jail for the theft of service. Why do Madoff's fools get some money back and get their vengeance on the taxpayer's expense?
Image Hattip: Mario Piperni dot Com
Seems We White Collar Criminal Defense Attorneys Are a Hot Date Commodity. Why? Cause we are IN DEMAND. Who Knew? You Should!!
I found this little tidbit about finding wealthy guys for "gold digging" girls. It says that if you want to find wealthy guys hang out with lawyers...But not just any lawyers. No only Bankruptcy and White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. I just told my wife I am a hot commodity... she seems somewhat shall we say nonplussed...
Whether of not you are a "golddigger" White collar criminal defense lawyers are a good group with which to hang out. They are bright tough, and if you get one that is not afraid to try a case, interesting. The best of us know that the most important thing we can do is keep our clients out of the paper and unindicted. Hence the time to find a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer here on Long Island or in New York City, is as soon as you realize you could be (not may be or are) in trouble. Often you will be surprised to learn how few Nassau and Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyers are really White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. You need a Criminal Lawyer who is just as comfortable in State as in Federal court and you need one who knows how to conduct a money investigation as well as handle the criminal courtroom and the public.
I have taken on Ponzi scheme cases, as well as stock frauds. wire and mail frauds, and of course their by-product money laundering cases. I know that handling the press and getting a good face on the client in the court of public opinion is very important. Hence we work with our own Public Relation staff, media people and social workers to present our client well in the media and to the court. Judicious use of jury selection experts and a team approach to investigation and trial is another key aspect of what I think makes my firm different from most other Long Island (and even many New York City) White Collar Criminal Defense firms.
An additional worry for many White Collar Defendants is that even if they survive the criminal prosecution, they face lower standards for losing their licenses. Lawyers, Brokers, CPA's and even Notaries need to look for lawyers who have handled not only criminal cases, not only White Collar Criminal cases but also lawyers who have appeared before Grievance committees, NASD and SEC boards and the state education department. They need to find attorneys who have helped others hold onto the licenses after those individuals have been accused or even investigated for crimes.
Now a sentencing expert is not going to help Bernie Madoff too much. But when a White Collar Criminal Defendant is looking for a criminal defense team, especially in the federal Second Circuit (which encompasses New York Brooklyn Queens Nassau and Suffolk Counties), they should also be concerned with how much that trial lawyer knows about the Federal and State Sentencing guidelines. Working the guidelines and understanding the cases (such as Booker and FanFan and their progeny) is a key to avoiding lengthy prison sentences.
In all, I really enjoy working on White Collar Criminal Defense cases in New York and on Long Island. They provide a tremendous legal challenge and a personal challenge too. They require I reinforce to the jury that the clients are not bad people and that they are the same as those before whom they are called. They are just men and women who were trying to make an honest buck when a roof caved in.
It is also important to keep before the jury, that it is not the job of the white collar defendant to stop people from making mistakes with their money, it is their job to offer legitimate opportunities, explain the risks accurately and then let the chips fall where they may.
If you or someone you love is charged with a White Collar Crime whether in New York City or in Nassau or Suffolk counties, I would love to consult with you, or them, about it to see if we may help.
You can call us at 516-741-3400 24/7or reach out to us on this blog.
Whether of not you are a "golddigger" White collar criminal defense lawyers are a good group with which to hang out. They are bright tough, and if you get one that is not afraid to try a case, interesting. The best of us know that the most important thing we can do is keep our clients out of the paper and unindicted. Hence the time to find a White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyer here on Long Island or in New York City, is as soon as you realize you could be (not may be or are) in trouble. Often you will be surprised to learn how few Nassau and Suffolk County Criminal Defense Lawyers are really White Collar Criminal Defense Lawyers. You need a Criminal Lawyer who is just as comfortable in State as in Federal court and you need one who knows how to conduct a money investigation as well as handle the criminal courtroom and the public.
I have taken on Ponzi scheme cases, as well as stock frauds. wire and mail frauds, and of course their by-product money laundering cases. I know that handling the press and getting a good face on the client in the court of public opinion is very important. Hence we work with our own Public Relation staff, media people and social workers to present our client well in the media and to the court. Judicious use of jury selection experts and a team approach to investigation and trial is another key aspect of what I think makes my firm different from most other Long Island (and even many New York City) White Collar Criminal Defense firms.
An additional worry for many White Collar Defendants is that even if they survive the criminal prosecution, they face lower standards for losing their licenses. Lawyers, Brokers, CPA's and even Notaries need to look for lawyers who have handled not only criminal cases, not only White Collar Criminal cases but also lawyers who have appeared before Grievance committees, NASD and SEC boards and the state education department. They need to find attorneys who have helped others hold onto the licenses after those individuals have been accused or even investigated for crimes.
Now a sentencing expert is not going to help Bernie Madoff too much. But when a White Collar Criminal Defendant is looking for a criminal defense team, especially in the federal Second Circuit (which encompasses New York Brooklyn Queens Nassau and Suffolk Counties), they should also be concerned with how much that trial lawyer knows about the Federal and State Sentencing guidelines. Working the guidelines and understanding the cases (such as Booker and FanFan and their progeny) is a key to avoiding lengthy prison sentences.
In all, I really enjoy working on White Collar Criminal Defense cases in New York and on Long Island. They provide a tremendous legal challenge and a personal challenge too. They require I reinforce to the jury that the clients are not bad people and that they are the same as those before whom they are called. They are just men and women who were trying to make an honest buck when a roof caved in.
It is also important to keep before the jury, that it is not the job of the white collar defendant to stop people from making mistakes with their money, it is their job to offer legitimate opportunities, explain the risks accurately and then let the chips fall where they may.
If you or someone you love is charged with a White Collar Crime whether in New York City or in Nassau or Suffolk counties, I would love to consult with you, or them, about it to see if we may help.
You can call us at 516-741-3400 24/7or reach out to us on this blog.
Man Bites Dog: Victim Seeks Dismissal of Statutory Rape Charges Against Director Roman Polanski. Should It Matter?
The alleged victim in the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape case, joins with Polanski in seeking dismissal of the charges against him. Filing a separate affidavit, the victim accuses the former Judge and Prosecutor in her case of failures and misdeeds. She also claims that the prosecutors in the case now are seeking to cover up those misdeeds and that their failures are causing her unnecessary grief and embarrassment.
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.
Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.
Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.
Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.
If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.
I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.
Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.
What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter
Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog for 2008 and an Honor: Professor Doug Berman Sentencing Law and Policy Blog
Thinking of words and phrases to describe out Tony(c) award winning Best Criminal Law Blog is easy: Informative, cutting edge, authoritative, well written, incisive, thought-provoking. The one I like the most is consistant.
The 2008 Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog is Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy Blog. The reason for the award? This blog is consistantly the best place to go to begin to research the latest issues in Federal sentencing. Professor Berman is not only a blogger extrodinaire but his blog is cited to on a regular basis by courts and in briefs at the highest (read SCOTUS) levels of advocacy.
Doug is also a real giver. In addition to writing a blog that is a readers delight he also often authors briefs and amicus briefs on behalf of positions he believes in dealing with Sentencing law. Doug is generous with his time and is a frequent lecturer on all thing USSG and USSC. His insights have helped me over and over again in getting fair sentences for my clients. If a young practioner (or an old one for that matter) wants to learn the ins and outs of the USSG, get a copy of the USSG and then start reading the archives of Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.
An extra honor from me to Doug and his great Blog: This Tony(c)Award is being named for its winner. Hereinafter the Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog will hereinafter be known as the "Prof. Doug Berman Memorial Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog"
Thank you Professor for all you do.
Happy New Years to all of my readers.
TLD.
Follow me on Twitter and get updates througout the day of the best legal blog posts and news articles addressing the criminal law, law practice management and Constitutional law on and around the blogosphere.
The 2008 Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog is Professor Doug Berman's Sentencing Law and Policy Blog. The reason for the award? This blog is consistantly the best place to go to begin to research the latest issues in Federal sentencing. Professor Berman is not only a blogger extrodinaire but his blog is cited to on a regular basis by courts and in briefs at the highest (read SCOTUS) levels of advocacy.
Doug is also a real giver. In addition to writing a blog that is a readers delight he also often authors briefs and amicus briefs on behalf of positions he believes in dealing with Sentencing law. Doug is generous with his time and is a frequent lecturer on all thing USSG and USSC. His insights have helped me over and over again in getting fair sentences for my clients. If a young practioner (or an old one for that matter) wants to learn the ins and outs of the USSG, get a copy of the USSG and then start reading the archives of Sentencing Law and Policy Blog.
An extra honor from me to Doug and his great Blog: This Tony(c)Award is being named for its winner. Hereinafter the Tony(c) Award for Best Criminal Law Blog will hereinafter be known as the "Prof. Doug Berman Memorial Tony(c)Award for Best Criminal Law Blog"
Thank you Professor for all you do.
Happy New Years to all of my readers.
TLD.
Follow me on Twitter and get updates througout the day of the best legal blog posts and news articles addressing the criminal law, law practice management and Constitutional law on and around the blogosphere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)