JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG

WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.

Saturday, February 16, 2019

IN DEFENSE OF PAUL MANAFORT

Paul Manafort is sixty-nine years old. He has no prior record. He worked and created a distinguished career for himself in politics until the last several years when he sold his loyalty and common sense for money. We are no fans of Paul Manafort. He went to work for an incompetent nincompoop only to enrich himself and place himself close to the seat of power. 

Manafort went to trial on his case and lost and because he lost he is facing twenty years in prison. Let's say that slowly. A sixty-nine year old man who was convicted of his first non-violent crime has sentencing guidelines that recommend a judge sentence him to twenty years in prison.

What kind of legal system does that to one of its citizens? 

Lets look at the  3553(a) factors (you state court judges can click on over to the Nickelodeon site now, this is federal legal stuff). 

(1) 
the nature and circumstances of the  offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
 
Manafort has no priors.  Let's skip  to the other stuff for a moment, 
(2) the need for the sentence imposed
(A)
to reflect the seriousness of the offense  to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
We are a fairly well read and educated blogger. We cannot tell you specifically what Manafort did. He met with some Russians. He got paid some money. He moved it around to hide it (a 1956 or 1957 money laundering count probably). But what specifically did he do? And if we cannot tell you, how can a trucker in Boise, Idaho, be expected to know and be deterred from meeting with Russians to influence American elections? How can the naturalized Mexican/American hotel housekeeper in Las Vegas, who works two jobs and has two kids to support as a single mom be expected not to fly to Paris or Helsinki and meet with Russian diplomats if we aren't sure what Manafort did. In other words, there really is no need for deterrence here. If the Uber driver/school teacher in Baltimore wants to meet with the Russians and launder ten million bucks and influence the next election, he's not going to worry about what Manafort got.  
(B)
to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
 
See above. 
(C)
to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
 
See above. Is anyone truly worried that if Manafort got a five year sentence he would be up to his old tricks on  Mike Pence or Jenna Bush's 2024 presidential campaign? 
(D)
to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
Admittedly Manafort needs a college level course in ethics and the US Constitution. But he doesn't need it in prison. 
The fact of the matter is that our federal legal system is designed to crush defendants who go to trial and lose. There is no understanding of why the crime was committed. There is no recognition that we do not need to warehouse sixty-nine year old disgraced defendants. There is just the crushing monolith of the US Government steamrolling defendants who aren't wise enough to hire David O Markus and his firm. 
Make no mistake that Manafort's case is another straw on the back of the sixth amendment right to trial. Each defendant who has the audacity to force the crown to prove it's accusations, and each defendant who loses and is given a multi-decades sentence becomes another straw breaking the back of the right to trial. We are rapidly approaching a time where attorneys have more skill and experience arguing the nuances of the enhancements under the guidelines or reasons for a downward variance than have the experience to stare down a federal agent on cross examination because they know they are lying. 

We are going to rue the day. 

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

He spent his whole life cheating and stealing. Sorry, I have zero sympathy.

Anonymous said...

Rump,

Very interesting post. Im waiting for all those who would normally agree with you too suddenly side with the feds because, well, trump.

In real life 3553 is entirely underinclusive. A just sentence MUST be given in comparison to those not charged. So when the feds get on their high horse about manafort lying and impeding the investigation, they should have to explain why one of their own--mccabe-- has been found to be a liar and remains uncharged.

A just sentence must also take into account that the feds knew exactly who manafort was for years and never indicted him until scorthched earth mueller took over. Why? If it didn't matter until trump, then 25 years? No way.

They should also explain why 25 years is fair as compared to the deal they gave Tekashi 6ix9ine.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2019/02/how-tekashi-6ix9ine-plans-to-be-out-of-prison-in-under-a-year.html

Rumpole said...

A day in prison is misery. A week is life disrupting. A year in prison is life altering. Five years in prison brings financial ruin to the defendant and usually his family, along with punishment that lasts a lifetime. Nobody does five years as a fraud/white collar defendant - gets out- sees another opportunity for a crime and decides "yeah I'm gonna do this and I can do another five years."

Manafort deserves to be punished. Dying in prison is not appropriate for anyone other than individuals who have physically harmed people- and yes I would include Bernie Madoff into that group based on the harm he caused to hundreds of people and charities.

Anonymous said...

Rump are you too busy reading "the fountainhead" to figure out what he did? you can google these indictments and read them. Its pretty simple actually he defrauded banks, didn't pay his taxes, laundered money and acted as a foreign agent for another government without disclosing that.

I think you are right about the fact that this will not deter a vegas housekeeper from committing crimes. On the other hand, I imagine that DC lobbyists are crapping themselves over this. I also imagine that convicting a rich man for tax evasion sends a message that rich people have to pay their taxes.

if this guy had walked into a bank with a firearm and stole one percent of what he stole by lying he would go to jail for far longer than five years.

and spare me that this guy going to jail is some kind of injustice. This guy had the chance to cooperate after trial, a chance that most defendants never get and he still continued to lie and mislead investigators.

if you are looking to wax about the injustices of the criminal justice system I suggest you look elsewhere

Anonymous said...

Nice post. Trump will give him the Scooter Libby treatment and commute his sentence so that he can lecture waiters at Versaille about the ethical implications of not reporting their tips to the feds. Stone and Flynn will get the full Monty and give Mueller and his legal beagles the finger as they entertain the media with the news. The Republican reaction to all of this? Two words. Marc Rich.

Anonymous said...

DOM wrote about this in The Hill yesterday:

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/430329-paul-manafort-should-not-be-sentenced-to-20-years-in-prison

Anonymous said...

Markus' article on the same subject has over 1600 comments. They overwhelmingly do not agree with his position (or yours).

Anonymous said...

Does it really matter what sentence is imposed? Manafort did exactly what Trump wanted him to do and he will be paid in kind -- with a pardon.

Anonymous said...

Its all a game. Politics and government has always been a game, but never so vile.

The game was once akin to chess, played with gamesmanship within the rules, decorum and a degree of civility. The rule and decorum included robust debate, disagreement and compromise. Politicians were statesmen (or stateswomen), who valued public service and were committed to advancing the general welfare, as opposed to personal gains. Most politicians were mature, having achieved financial or professional goals before going into politics, with which can a healthy dose of life experience and common sense. There were rules of engagement, a code akin to the Geneva Convention. Personal attacks were the exception not the norm. Resort to criminal process for a political gain was seldom heard off. Certainly, attacking the family was off limits.

Today. Politics is a career to many, if not all of the elected so called leaders. Today, many of the politicians have never held a real job. Mostly, they are individuals whose adult life, in one way or another, has been in the political arena, appointed or elected. They owe their life to the puppet-masters and handlers, whether the puppet-masters are political party leaders, special interest or millionaires, is of no import. The puppet-masters and handlers direct, or actually dictate, their every move and thought, not for the general welfare, but to advance the agenda of the puppet-masters. Today, there are virtually no rules of engagement. Personal attacks are the norm, not the exception. The family is fair game, if not the fist line of attack. Off course, resort to criminal process for political gains is at the top of the charts.

Today, there are no standards, there are not boundaries, in the cesspool which is the political arena. Politicians and their snipers target not only other politicians, but their families, and those perceived as part of the inner circle or kitchen cabinet. So those who play in the cesspool of politics have to expect to suffer consequences similar to what has befallen those close to Trump.

Many wonder why we have no quality candidates for elected office while the answer is obvious. Too many drink the Koolaide concocted by the puppet-masters, only to then complain. Only by rejecting the negative and personal attacks, and supporting those who do not partake of such tactics can me improve our country.

The bottom line is the called leadership of our county is more concerned with the next election cycle and financial gains than the public interest. Blocking and frustrating legislation, emasculating the administration, and frustrating the governmental process are major chapters in the game book. The game book obviously omits the chapter on responsibility to the country, or actually the harm they are doing to the country. Certainly, these politicians forget the oath of office.

Trump used the term swamp to describe Washington. A swam has redeeming qualities and is life supporting. I suggest the term cesspool is more appropriate term to describe the political arenas, whether Federal, State, or Local.



Rumpole said...

12:20 No I can quote from the Fountainhead chapter and verse. Also Atlas Shrugged. Also Most of Shakespeare's tragedies, especially Romeo And Juliet, not to mention most of the old and new testament.

My point, which you appeared to miss (no surprise) is that I am exceptionally well read and intelligent. Every day I read the London and NY Times, Le Monde, WSJ, and the Washington Post. And I cannot tell you off the top of my head what Manafort did. Of course I could google it or more likely have one of my assistants brief me on it. But if I cannot tell you exactly what he did, how can a waitress in Des Moines or a CPA in Lacrosse Wisconsin, or an exotic dancer in San Jose, CA, or a children's book editor in San Francisco be expected to be dissuaded from meeting with the Russians to influence our next election based on the sentence Manafort receives. Put another and more simple way for people like you- the concept that a lengthy sentence in this or most cases dissuades others from committing crimes is pure fiction. I do not see many drug traffickers perusing the 11th circuit's website of listed opinions on 1956 and 1957 money laundering sentences.
HR

Anonymous said...

Let me start with two quick disclaimers: 1) I'm a civil lawyer, and 2) I think that the sentencing system in general leads to unjust sentences.

That said, I don't understand the concept of the "trial tax." If I commit X crime, and the law says that the appropriate sentence, if convicted for X crime, is Y term of years; how is it a "trial tax" to be sentenced to that very same Y term of years after being convicted of X crime?

My clients frequently settle for less money than they think could get after success at trial because there is value in getting a lesser, but still reasonable, result without incurring the cost and uncertainty associated with trial.

Why should this be different in the criminal law context? Why does offering those accused of X crime a plea for Y/2 term of years if they forego trial constitute a "trial tax" on those who have not foregone a trial?

I understand that the sentencing guidelines are so out of whack with concepts of actual justice that an innocent person might be convinced to plead guilty to avoid the legal sentence for the crimes of which they are accused. But that's not a "trial tax," that's just bad law.

Rumpole said...

Mr/Ms Civil. First, thanks for reading.

Ok, quick lesson on fed crim law-


The prosecution can indict a ham sandwich. So in doing so in any particular crime they often can choose from an array of crimes that fit the bill many of which have minimum mandatories. So the first trial tax is that after the initial indictment if there is no quick resolution the prosecution goes back to the ham sandwich factory (the grand jury) and gets new charges with minimum mandatory sentences added.


Second- the new charges have a guideline range- say 130-146 months. Now if you go to trial the offer of 130 will change to 146. BUT WAIT THERE IS MORE.

The guidelines also have enhancements. Like sophisticated means for using a computer or cell phone during the course of a crime. Try even buying a candy bar these days without using sophisticated means. The sophisticated means enhancement raises your guidelines two levels. They call your client a leader. Another two levels. And on and on until after losing a trial (something we admittedly know very little about, but we hear things) that 130-146level is not something like 160-171 months and the judge gives your client 170 months. That mi amigo/amiga is what the trial tax is all about. It is the excessive punishment of your client for exercising her right to trial by jury instead of rolling over and putting your paws in the air and begging for mercy which is all most criminal defense attorneys do these days.

Anonymous said...

Rump, this is "Mr. Civil." I still don't see it. If the law says, "committing X crime with a cell phone" means you get Z more time, and you do commit X crime with a cell phone, and then you are convicted and do get the Z extra time, why is that a "tax" and not just "the law"?

Anonymous said...

The day has been here for some time. Our clients have gotten more time for how they handled themselves after the arrest than for the crime charged. Especially whether they plead and cooperate or not. Fuck him. He will have lots of company to commiserate with.

Anonymous said...

Lock 'em up. All of them.

Rumpole said...

Mr. Civil because the prosecution and the court have large discretion in applying these enhancements and they normally do not always do so EXCEPT when there is a trial and a loss. If you cannot accept the proposition which all criminal defense attorneys are saying that sentences are greatly enhanced after a loss usually for no reason other than the person went to trial and lost, then you are in fact where you belong- civil- which the law is infinitely easier and more obtuse.

Anonymous said...

Mr Civil here.

Ah, the joy of "if you don't agree then you're a fool" arguments.

Oh well.

Rumpole said...

No my less than civil brethren; you are free to disagree. You phrased your repeated questions as if you did not understand. This is a significant difference between being obstinate and stupid.