Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (23582)	8/20/2001 10:24:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well, you're the closest so far. But in fact, what he got was two 10-year consecutive sentences. Which the appeals court sent back because they had been calculated incorrectly. So he will almost certainly wind up with less than that. The standard sentencing range for these crimes, as I reall (I don't have the advance sheet here at home) is 36 to 72 months. Something like that. But they enhanced his for several reasons: deliberate cruelty and abuse of a trust relationship was the other. He actually argued that he couldn't abuse the trust relationship because a 13 day old child had no understanding of any trust relationship between herself and her father, and so the relationship didn't exist and couldn't be abused. The appeals court tossed that one out easily. But egad. I know lawyering is supposed to be a vigorous presentation of your client's case, but is there NOTHING some lawyers won't argue??