From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:08:34 +0800
To: John Young <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Jim Bell's Sentencing Delayed Again
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971122031642.006ac71c@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19971121220306.00a5e580@mail.io.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 10:16 PM 11/21/97 -0500, John Young wrote:
>Jim Bell was scheduled to be sentenced today at 9:30 AM.
>I called the court's ever-helpful administrative office 
>(1-253-593-6754) for a report and was told that sentencing 
>had been postponed until December 12, 10:30AM.
>[...]
>Perhaps one of our legal subscribers could comment on what's
>going on with these repeated delays in sentencing, especially
>whether it's common to do so after a plea agreement is reached.

It strikes me as peculiar/unusual; perhaps there's a list subscriber with
more experience on the Federal criminal side to offer a different
perspective. The factor that strikes me as especially peculiar is that
there haven't been motions from either the defense or the prosecution in
support of these postponements; they've simply been entered as orders from
the court. (I haven't seen a docket entry for this latest postponement,
perhaps it's different.)

If the defense saw it as in their interests to delay sentencing, ordinarily
I'd expect to see a motion from the defense for each postponement, wherein
the defense would explain why they're not prepared to move forward.
Similarly, were the prosecution unprepared (perhaps the probation
department hasn't finished the presentence report), I'd expect to see a
motion to that effect .. and it'd be very unusual for either side to
succeed in gaining three postponements. Either side can probably expect one
as a matter of courtesy, perhaps a second if there's a really good reason
.. but three is unusual, especially without a motion & affidavit to explain
why.

I'm starting to favor the explanation which suggests that Jim will be
testifying at the trial(s) or before grand juries in other matters - and
that his sentencing is postponed to ensure his cooperation, and that the
defense isn't squealing about the successive postponements because that's
seen as more favorable than receiving a sentence of many, many months in
the event of noncooperation. I'm reluctant to finger anyone as a "snitch"
without knowing more - and this is all speculation - but something looks
funny about what's happening thus far. (It's also possible that he's
physically/mentally incapacitated such that he's not able to participate in
his sentencing, which would explain why the court would be postponing on
its own initiative, and why the defense isn't opposing the continuance.)

I guess I don't really see a good (or uncomplicated) reason for these
postponements - if Jim were out of custody, it wouldn't be surprising for
him to attempt to drag the out-of-custody presentence period on for some
time. But when a defendant is in custody, they're likely to get more
immediate/focused attention from their attorney, and courts are less likely
to enter a continuance. The prosecution doesn't need to do a lot of extra
work to prepare for sentencing, and the probation department has had a lot
of time to work up the presentence report.


--
Greg Broiles                | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell:
gbroiles@netbox.com         | Export jobs, not crypto.
http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com