Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier

Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/29/2008 6:58:34 PM)
quote: MOBILE, Ala. - Patrick Lett returned to south Alabama when he finished an unblemished 17-year Army career, including two tours in Iraq. Then his father died, he couldn't find work to support his two daughters and his life took a wrong turn. Lett pleaded guilty in federal court to cocaine possession for his involvement in a cousin's drug operation and was sentenced in 2006 to five years in prison. U.S. District Judge William Steele didn't want to order Lett to serve time at all, but he thought the law required it. Steele noted at the sentencing Lett had led "an exemplary life up until the time of the offenses and even after," when Lett re-enlisted and served another 17 months before his indictment. Lett, 39, probably would be in prison today if a friend hadn't helped Steele realize that he had misunderstood the sentencing requirements. Steele changed the prison term to three years of supervised release, and Lett was free to go, the judge's honest mistake apparently cleared up. But that didn't satisfy prosecutors, who appealed the lighter sentence on the grounds that Steele didn't have the authority to change the initial five-year sentence. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying Steele couldn't undo his own error. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26460810/ Should the prosecutors have just let this slide? Or did ethics compel them to object? Or does Lett deserve to have the book thrown at him?

Alumbrado -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/29/2008 7:09:15 PM)
That is unusual, but it doesn't look like they said his sentence couldn't be overturned, just that the judge who made the mistake couldn't decide on his own to reverse and re-impose it. People have won appeals because judges misinterpreted instructions before, I think he may just have to appeal on those grounds to a higher court. And no prosecutor with an ounce of ambition is going to do the right thing, if it means that later on during an election campaign, their opponents can use it against them.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/29/2008 7:30:06 PM)
The prosecutors should have let it go. We need a sane drug policy in this country, but that is another matter. Right now it's illegal, and that is OUR fault. Survey after survey show that Americans don't want to legalize or decriminalize drugs. People want these harsh sentences, because they are easily swayed by propaganda. We are all led to believe that all drug dealers are heartless, cold-blooded murderers like you see in the movies. We never seem to think of dealers in the romantic terms that we do for moonshiners. I don't know one person that doesn't have an addict in their family. We all have them. The people they are locking up are our family members. I don't understand it, and I suppose I never will. I have started to give up on humanity.

Alumbrado -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/29/2008 8:14:44 PM)
http://november.org/thewall/cases/lett-p/lett-p.html Don't imagine for a second that I like the way prosecutors think, or use their office to further their political ambitions, but if they hadn't opposed this, that mug shot of Patrick Lett with some photoshopped stubble ala OJ, would have been flooding the TVs next election, along with a sonorous narration accusing 'While DA, he allowed a killer to walk free from a 5 year sentence for drug dealing!!...( cut to faux headlines '8 Dead in Gun Battle', using number of enemy engaged by Sgt Lett in Iraq as 'victims'...). That is the shark tank prosecutors swim in, and things political have really gotten that bad, and the number of people who will unquestioningly accept such stuff is apparently skyrocketing. Hopefully the correct sentence will be will be set right through the ordinary appeals process.

Vendaval -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 3:05:16 AM)
Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence.

philosophy -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 10:53:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher?

scifi1133 -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 10:56:12 AM)
Mandatory minimums have been the bain of the justice system since they were made. It takes the sentencing out of the hands of judges. It's not how the system was supposed to work. The D.A. should have left well enough alone.

scifi1133 -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 10:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher? Honestly I do believe there would be after as long in service with a clean record. It happened here about 2 years ago. A teacher that had gotten divorced and lost everything was doing some mule work for her cousin and the judge said that because of her clean record for 45 years and her 20 years of teaching that he thought it was a one time thing. She got 3 years probation.

philosophy -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 11:06:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: scifi1133 quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher? Honestly I do believe there would be after as long in service with a clean record. It happened here about 2 years ago. A teacher that had gotten divorced and lost everything was doing some mule work for her cousin and the judge said that because of her clean record for 45 years and her 20 years of teaching that he thought it was a one time thing. She got 3 years probation. .....fair enough, thanks for the answer......

Alumbrado -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 12:15:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher? And what part of... "a five-part statutory "safety valve" that permits shorter sentences for defendants with unblemished backgrounds who played minor roles in crimes that did not involve violence and who had told the truth about what happened. Few defendants qualify. Sergeant Lett did."... suggests otherwise?

Kalista07 -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 12:59:03 PM)
My problem with this is until we decriminalize something that is an addiction, a disease we are boing to continue to have these difficulties. i'm not saying people shouldn't be held accountable for their behavior, but i do think we've reached a point in time in society where we have to realize that the only thing we are accomplishing by continuing to jail people for engaging in behaviors which support their disease the only thing we are accomplishing is creating institutionalization. Just my 53 cents worth. Kali

philosophy -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 3:47:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher? And what part of... "a five-part statutory "safety valve" that permits shorter sentences for defendants with unblemished backgrounds who played minor roles in crimes that did not involve violence and who had told the truth about what happened. Few defendants qualify. Sergeant Lett did."... suggests otherwise? sighs well, oh contentious one, given some comments made on these fora regarding the respect due to those in the military it was worth asking whether posters here felt that other professions also qualified. Honestly, not every post is what you think it is.

Alumbrado -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 4:00:32 PM)
Some comments on these fora suggest all sorts of things...but that still doesn't explain why you thought this case was a matter of special treatement that a teacher or nurse wouldn't have gotten, from the words printed in the story above. And aren't you the one who spent post after post haranguing me about the pharmacists 'right' to not give medicine out to people who weren't using it for contraception, while you denied that the words spelling out that it was for medical conditions, not contraception appeared in print? And I'm contentious?

Vendaval -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/30/2008 4:37:07 PM)
I think most any legal profession would apply. Nurses, teachers, taxi drivers, assembly line workers, etc. The recent criminal behavior was out of charcter for this individual based on his previous history. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Vendaval Given his lack of prior criminal behavior and having served in the military and been gainfully employed, I am fine with the 3 year sentence. (my italics) .......would there be the same sense of cutting this poor man a little slack if he'd been a nurse or a teacher?

philosophy -> RE: Judge's goof could imprison ex-soldier (8/31/2008 10:29:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado Some comments on these fora suggest all sorts of things...but that still doesn't explain why you thought this case was a matter of special treatement that a teacher or nurse wouldn't have gotten, from the words printed in the story above. And aren't you the one who spent post after post haranguing me about the pharmacists 'right' to not give medicine out to people who weren't using it for contraception, while you denied that the words spelling out that it was for medical conditions, not contraception appeared in print? And I'm contentious? .......once again.....and please read closely, i'd hate for you to misunderstand me. i asked the question because i wanted to know whether other posters here saw this as something only the ex-military were entitled to or whether anyone who contributes positively to society is entitled to. You are being contentious, trying to make my question something that it was never intended to be. It wasn't about how the law is written, but about how (via the miracles of free speech on these fora) people in the USA think. ...as to your second paragraph, you may remember that i apologised for my misunderstanding on that issue. Mea culpa, no doubts. When i make an error i try to make it clear that i have been in error. i am sorry that your apparent mindset makes it impossible for you to remember things like that.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.445313E-02