A federal judge has scheduled a hearing to review the five-year prison sentence given to former Bridgeport state Sen. Ernest E. Newton II.
[...]
The panel wants the judge to explain how he arrived at a 60-month sentence when the 2003 federal sentencing guidelines calculation called for only a 33- to 41-month term.
For example, why did Newton get five years in the slammer when John Rowland got a stern lecture and twenty minutes in the corner to think about what he did?
Source
"Judge to review corruption sentence of former state senator." Associated Press 4 December, 2006.
13 comments:
How about accepting a bribe and under-reporting income?
How about you didn't answer the question? Rowland did both of those and lots more, besides. If you had said
a. Ernie's black.
b. he wasn't as powerful and well-wired
c. he didn't get Judge Peter Dorsey who doesn't take this stuff seriously.
d. Willy Dow turns out to be a great lawyer.
then you would have won today's grand prize, a free guided tour of the Enfield Public Library.
Rowland should have been jailed for stupidity. Still, the irony of him in hot water due to a free hot tub is just too sweet.
Ernie also never publicly admitted guilt or gave a mea culpa - in fact, he played the race card himself. Blamed all his troubles on "the man", not on his own ham-handed shake downs. He even had the nerve to quote MLK on his courthouse step speech. He was a small time crook who got what he deserved.
I agree. See item d.
A good lawyer would have made sure Ernie did the contrition dance. He and JGR are equally contrite.
he didn't get Judge Peter Dorsey who doesn't take this stuff seriously
Totally totally totally untrue. Dorsey takes these things incredibly seriously. He doesn't believe in draconian sentencing. It's a philosophical view and he's consistent with it. Check his record.
Let's also not forget that the feds had more on Newton than they did on Rowland. What was it? 50 incriminating cell phone calls? If Rowland had gone forward with a trial as opposed to taking a plea deal there's a chance a jury wouldn't have convicted him and he would have gotten away scott free.
he deserved the five years for his incredibly bad taste in clothes.
Newton tried to jive his way out of it, and Rowland, after a certain point, didn’t. Newton chose not to make a deal with prosecutors, and Rowland did, pleading to a single charge. The legislature could have fully investigated all the dark doings of Rowland—and other governors—and chose not to. These are some differences between the two. Ultimately, sentences of this kind are the responsibility of prosecutors. And I don’t see Colin blaming them.
bluecoat - once again you write something on this blog as if you are an expert, yet you are 100% wrong.
Your accusation that someone "rigged" the assignment of judges ("The assognment of judges for Rowland and Newton was not a coincidence.") is completely without merit. You obviously have no idea how cases are assigned to judges in the federal system. Please ask any attorney you know - or I would ask any attorney on this board to chime in - and they will confirm that thee is no truth to your conspiracy theory.
In the federal system you can't go "judge shopping" as cases are assigned randomly.
Please, try finding out the facts before you make these types of accusations.
I'm still wondering what Colin's comment about Newton being black has to do with this question?
Dear bluecoat:
My, my, my ... you are a sensitive fellow. You are often quick to criticize, but when criticized yourself you get very defensive.
For the record, here is what you said and as i quoted you directly: "The assognment of judges for Rowland and Newton was not a coincidence."
One need not be an English major from Harvard to understand that you were clearly making an assertion that there was something fishy in the assignment of judges, in that Newton got a tough judge and Rowland got a more lenient judge.
When I correctly noted that federal judges are not assigned in such a way that could result in such a manipulation of the system you then said the following, and I quote: "And since I have to spell everything out for you 3:52, I was talking about the assognment of penalties."
Sorry bluecoat, only an absolute idiot would read what you wrote the first time and believe that you were talking about the penalties given to each man, when you specifically said "the assignment of judges." Rather than simply say that you misspoke, or that you were incorrect about the process for assigning judges, you make up an unbelievable statement about what you really meant and then try to attack or ridicule me.
Rather than point out when you are factually wrong bluecoat, from now on we should just all ignore you!
One more point, bluecoat. I did not challenge your comment about O'Connor even though it too is incorrect. O'Connor recused himself from the Rowland matter entirely (that is a matter of public record that you also ignore) and consequently had no role in the Rowland investigation or prosecution (do I need to define recusal for you?). By the way, he was right to recuse himself (such recusals for new US Attorneys is not uncommon). Thus, any problems with the case rest with the lead agents and attorneys, not O'Connor. Lastly, I am not even a big fan of O'Connor's but these are the facts and you should stop distorting them.
Isn't Ernie the "Moses of his people"?
Post a Comment