Level
Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006 Status: offline
|
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?
< Message edited by Level -- 8/29/2008 6:59:24 PM >
_____________________________
Fake the heat and scratch the itch Skinned up knees and salty lips Let go it's harder holding on One more trip and I'll be gone ~~ Stone Temple Pilots
|