Partial transcript of JF's sentencing hearing released. The judge believed that JL's plea deal was too generous; he would have given JL something harsher if his hands hadn't been tied.
On the other hand, JF's blizzard of support letters convinced the judge that JF had confronted his sinful past & was determined to reform etc etc. JF was in the position of an easily-led youth finding himself in a toxic frat house - and so on. This despite the judge's belief that JF and JL were equally responsible for the crimes at the time they were committed.
These factors outweighed the considerations arising from JL's guilty plea vs JF's robust defence, and the 28 or whatever counts versus one count aspect.
So not appropriate to use JL's 5 years as any kind of benchmark to be added to for JF's lack of admission of guilt etc etc. The 5 years for JF is just right, in the judge's view, and the 5 years for JL was too light, in the larger scheme of things.
The judge makes IMO valid points about threading what he sees as the common Scylla & Charybdis of judges empathizing too much with white-collar defendants with similar socio-economic backgrounds to themselves versus "hitting for the bleachers" in sentencing to show how tough they are.
It's all thoughtful & intelligent but the gaping hole for me is the judge's ready reliance on all of those support letters JF got people to write.
Without them, it's pretty clear the judge would have hit JF with a double-digit sentence. It's seems like a very fragile basis for such a differential in sentencing. Would kind of diligence did the court do on the quality of those letters - anything? I'm following another case where the defendant has produced a similar blizzard letters - some of them from people who are obviously complicit with the defendant in other shady stuff, to anybody who digs into things.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
