|
|
Post by hchoops on Jun 12, 2019 17:20:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 12, 2019 20:36:22 GMT -5
Morale of the story? As we all know guilt or innocence is not the question. It's : Who is your attorney? The quality of the lawyer is an important key for defendants. Great trial work by a defense lawyer is a ticket to a better result for most defendants. LoveHC This was not heavy lifting by counsel. This guy agreed to plead guilty within 3 weeks of being contacted by the FBI in exchange for a cap of 18 months. Stanford got $610,000 and never admitted any of the students and some of the evidence was obtained by Singer wearing a wire. With no victim and a star witness as bad as Singer, it is possible this case could have resulted in a hung jury or an acquittal at trial but that would have required in excess of $100,000 in attorneys fees and too much risk. I think this was a fair result. On on the other hand some of the other defendants need to go to jail |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Jun 12, 2019 22:01:00 GMT -5
How about Felicity Huffman? Perfect contrition yet she paid to have her daughter's SAT scores inflated, thus creating hundreds of thousands of victims who played by the rules. I think the judge has to give her 3-6 months or so. I always wondered why you never see a defendant rescind bail and go directly to jail at the time of plea so that when the judge is ready to sentence they can be done or almost done with their sentence and get on with their life. How can you move forward with your life while you are awaiting sentencing? It's like the dilemma of being unemployed. You have ample time off but it is so stressful that by the time you get a job you feel like you need a vacation.
Perhaps the Stanford coach's experience is why you never see it. You might only get home confinement and probation and you would have risked a shiv in the back for nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jun 13, 2019 6:16:26 GMT -5
How about Felicity Huffman? Perfect contrition yet she paid to have her daughter's SAT scores inflated, thus creating hundreds of thousands of victims who played by the rules. I think the judge has to give her 3-6 months or so. I always wondered why you never see a defendant rescind bail and go directly to jail at the time of plea so that when the judge is ready to sentence they can be done or almost done with their sentence and get on with their life. How can you move forward with your life while you are awaiting sentencing? It's like the dilemma of being unemployed. You have ample time off but it is so stressful that by the time you get a job you feel like you need a vacation. Perhaps the Stanford coach's experience is why you never see it. You might only get home confinement and probation and you would have risked a shiv in the back for nothing. I think that Singer should get several years in jail. I think that coaches who pocketed cash should go to jail for a few years. I think that those who paid ought to get some time, too. Those who can pay ought to get big fines, too. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jun 13, 2019 6:40:29 GMT -5
The news reports that I saw were pretty sympathetic; neutral at worst. Apparently, he kept absolutely no money for himself and used it entirely for equipment and other team needs. Whether true or not, it came across as not much different than when someone donates money to a specific HC team through the Crusader Athletic Fund. The devil being in the details that the money went through him rather than the school. Somehow they figure that no student was denied admission because of someone gaining admission through this incident. Not sure how they can say that.
Last point: the legal talking heads said any defendant that think he/she are going to get off as easily is in for a rude surprise. As posted above by others, there were a lot of mitigating factors for this defendant among others that he did not personally benefit; he pleaded guilty right out of the gate; and very importantly showed remorse. And, of course, lost his job.
|
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jun 14, 2019 7:55:42 GMT -5
The news reports that I saw were pretty sympathetic; neutral at worst. Apparently, he kept absolutely no money for himself and used it entirely for equipment and other team needs. Whether true or not, it came across as not much different than when someone donates money to a specific HC team through the Crusader Athletic Fund. The devil being in the details that the money went through him rather than the school. Somehow they figure that no student was denied admission because of someone gaining admission through this incident. Not sure how they can say that. Last point: the legal talking heads said any defendant that think he/she are going to get off as easily is in for a rude surprise. As posted above by others, there were a lot of mitigating factors for this defendant among others that he did not personally benefit; he pleaded guilty right out of the gate; and very importantly showed remorse. And, of course, lost his job. Agree. The fact that he didn't pocket a dime, and that he agreed to bring in certain students as members of the sailing team only to benefit the overall team by getting it a lot of necessary equipment, was a huge factor. The other defendants will not be in the same position. |
|
