@@fettel1988 This is a great point. The public may find that what occurs in court seems arbitrary and in fact much of the time it is. Without the deeper knowledge of how the rules of the court and the laws which are interpreted by the court have come into existence, people would likely be pretty amazed by what is and isn't allowed. What is and isn't legal. And since the VAST majority of cases don't go to trial all of those settlements where most of the legal process is actually played out would still be hidden from public view.
@@fettel1988 unfortunately, no part of the law is objective. Even legalese “objective” standards are inherently subjective. Any standard is, by definition, subjective. Reading a transcript necessarily requires one to intuit inflection, meanings, etc., based on nothing but words on a page. Video allows us to base those judgements on more information, taking us closer to objectivity.
Yeah, well, desperation born of poverty is like that. Not to mention that the specifics of product type and quantities are not likely to have been mentioned - "I just need you to drive this vehicle from TJ to LA" . . .
My thought exactly .. 4000 dollars for smuggling that much dosent soud like a person who is well connected in the organization .. shitty pay for the risk reward factor ...
How does a quilt plea have anything to do with the police? The dependent had their trial and the judge sentenced them appropriately. Why did you need to bring the Police into as if they caused an injustice. By doing this and accusing the police shows your lack of justice!
I was under the impression that the 9th circus itself is the most overturned appeals court in the country. So I googled just to check the facts and found out that I was incorrect, that it is actually the second most overturned appeals court in the country behind the 6th circuit in DC. So a ruling like this does not surprise me but I commend the judge for doing the right thing. His experience told him to sentence the criminals one way and because he was not able in good conscience to meet the demands of the appeals court he recused himself from the case and explained why. He did the right thing.
@@briangallagher787 but the truth is he did follow the laws as he has understood it for 25 years in the same job. The 9th circus opinion is not law but is an opinion that he should have given them a lesser sentence. It is a legal difference of opinion between two courts. He disagreed so he recused himself which is an appropriate action. It has nothing to do with him not following the laws or his oath as you suggest.
Judging a court's performance based on the reversal rate is the same kind of simplistic reasoning that would use simple statistics to say that you've got one testicle, and what we can expect from either people who have an agenda or people who don't have a clue. SCOTUS can choose a case as one of the very small percentage the review for a number of reasons, and often that's because they think a court was wrong about an important point of law. Ignoring (a whopping 3) cases appealed from the armed forces, the average reversal rate at SCOTUS is 69.4%. By the simplistic metric of reversal the 4th circuit was "best", getting it right only 40.7% of the time. For a more reasonable evaluation you could start by looking at the number of cases reversed compared to the total number of cases a district has tried. If you do that you'll find that what some people claim as a large number of reversals is actually a very tiny fraction of the cases that were tried. In fact, the differences from one district to the next are largely just statistical noise with very little significance.
"Most overturned court" in terms of raw numbers, possibly, but as a percentage of cases it hears, it is about average. The 9th hears more cases than any other US Circuit Court.
@@TheRealScooterGuy here's where we emulate the district courts. You claim that the 80.4% reversal rate is about average when the average is 69.4, the low is 59.3 (if you drop the three cases from the armed forces), and 81.5 is the high. With those numbers I would not call the 80.4% reversal from the 9th circuit average. But that's just my opinion based on the facts I have seen. Just like the details of the case that the judge who was overturned saw led him to give the defendant a higher jail term and those same details led the ninth circus to send it back for resentencing.
I looked up the initial case. Naming the drugs is indeed important 47 pounds of methamphetamine and 5 pounds of heroin. There are no "pawns" with those quantities of those drugs
Uh, all they have to do is drive a car from A to B. The car could have a literal ton of heroin in it, and they'd be just as involved as if they were delivering a pre-rolled joint.
@@GamesFromSpace I'd say that there's a huge difference between delivering a single joint vs. enough drugs to kill multiple elephants. And no reasonable person wouldn't realize that they're doing something *big* by smuggling massive bales of mystery substances.
The judge has made, in my view, a good if not lower than needed sentence prior to the appeal. They, the accused, had priors in the same capacity and I would expect sentencing for the same type of crime to increase with each conviction. If one tried and failed to smuggle a chocolate bar across the border, was convicted, released, and tried to repeat the act that had them caught and convicted everyone reading the case for the second instance should expect an increase in punishment.
I'm glad you phrased it that way. Let's say the first chocolate bar got 1 year in prison. How many years in prison is it reasonable to give someone for a second chocolate bar? Obviously, zero. Just because we made a mistake once, doesn't mean that repeating it is correct.
@@briangallagher787 the law can be wrong. We admit this every time we change it. There's a certain flower that used to be illegal in every state. Many lives were ruined over this. Now it's legal in half of states. Those states are doing better. The fact that the law changed and that change improved the situation is proof that the law was wrong. What value is there in destroying our own society to enforce unjust laws?
@@jxtq27 If it is contraband, going from the months mentioned as " minimum " and the difference is less than 1/3 to 1/2 it is a reasonable increase. With your 1 year, that is 12 months, so going to 14 to 18 months would be reasonable.
The trial Judge can see the Defendant Smile or Grin, Laugh ETC.. This time from what Steve said, I totally agree with the Trial Judge.. REPEAT OFFENDERS, are NOT Minor Offenders..💯👎👮
The woman was not a repeat offender and the trial judge didn't base his opinion that she wasn't a minor participant on her demeanor. He based it upon her knowledge of the operation and prior use as a smuggler (do not confuse this as a prior offender as she wasn’t caught before which is the "prior offender" standard). I'd like to compare this case to a different case where the offender was given "minor participant" consideration from this judge to see how he determines who is a minor participant and who isn't. It sounds like he almost always denies defendant minor participant consideration. A sentence shouldn't be affected based upon an unlucky draw of a judge. A sentence should fit the crime and should be standard according to the facts of the case, not according to the particular judge.
@@Karen_MarieYou listened!! I'd only add that over 100 sentences by this judge have been appealed for him not using the "minor participant" requirement
@@B_Bodziak I don't know if that's true, but if it is, that does change the character of this situation quite a bit. If there is a pattern of the judge giving sentences that are irreconcilable with the commonly held interpretations of the law as it is written, that's a really big problem.
When it comes to back seat drivers and Monday morning quarterbacks in the legal profession, rest assured you are not alone. (And you're lucky if it only goes as far as exchanging a couple of nasty letters.)
You presume that the Appeals judges actually read the transcript and all the documents carefully and had anything confusing explained to them. SINCE WHEN?
@@WeThePeepHole333 You appear to have a room temperature IQ level, let me spell it out for you. She was sentenced to time served, as in, she's no longer in prison. Now she'll go right back to where she got the drugs in the first place, and smuggle them back all over again.
She wears the blindfold to claim being impartial and for the most part she is. Where people get confused is thinking the scales are there to weigh the evidence, they are for weighing how much gold someone has.
@@maxsdad538 facts are always facts presently shown or never shown or revealed in the future . Accusers / whiteness can think what they saw is fact but may not be . humans are all fail-able judge prosecutors witnesses all humans . Even camera s can be tricked. I sure ain’t god.
It was never anything other than an excuse to target people of color so they can keep prison labor camps full. Prison labor is legal slavery according to the 13th amendment after all.
Im not sure it shows integrity as much as it was more of a pissing contest.. first judge dudnt like being questioned.. that isnt what i would call integrity
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Steve. All this prosecution of drug smugglers is making my taxes higher and worst of all my drugs more expensive. Nobody should have to choose between filling the tank with heroin and putting cocaine on the table.
I’ve been the recipient of some “sharp” comments from Judges whose decisions I have successfully Appealed, I’ve had Judges apologise to me for getting it wrong when an Appeal has overturned their verdict, I’ve had Judges “crow” when an Appeal has failed. I’ve never had a Judge criticise the Appeal Court.
The 9th Circus Court of Appeals is filled with progressive activists whose loyalty is to the progressive political religion and not to the rule of law or the US Constitution.
@cvr527 It's some scary s**t. I looked at the coverage map of the 9th and encompasses most of the west coast even as far as the entire state of Idaho. That's almost 1/4 the population of the country. Definitely needs to be broken up.
Then all the court proceedings should be filmed, it's not like we need reels of film strip anymore! It's all digital. Also, nobody who's anybody in drug smuggling or sales is doing the kind of grunt work where you could get busted with it in transit etc If they're doing it right, their hands never touch the substance
Body language is not universal. In general body language is worse than flipping a coin in terms of predicting if someone is being truthful. If you really know someone and have spent a long time in conversation with them there are individually unique indications which are part of human communication. But, that isn't the type of thing we are talking about during a trial.
@@IHaveNoName2009 With respect, these weren't trials. Both pleaded guilty. While there was most likely an allocution and a statement or even testimony from the Federal agent involved, all that should be held under the microscope of black and white.
I think this is the only time we disagree. The District Court Judge is there to supervise that case. I don’t want his prosecutor bias or experience. I want him to apply the facts to the law. That is the District Judge’s job. The Appellate Courts, including the Supreme Court, interprets the law. If the District Court doesn’t like the new interpretation of the law, too bad. I might not like what the Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court are doing with their new interpretations, but that is how our system is set up. This District Court Judge wants to get on his soapbox because the Appeals Court has now reinterpreted the law he had applied for 25 years. He better get used to it because I have a feeling new interpretations of the law are going to be the norm for the foreseeable future.
This is like an auto tech who has worked in the same shop for 25 years. Customer comes in, has a problem. The tech makes a call, fixes the problem. The customer comes back with another problem, same tech gets the same car. Manager comes over and basically tells the tech to follow the book, despite the tech saying he had seen the problem hundreds of times before, and knew what he was doing. Then the manager says he doesn't care, follow the book anyway. The tech then says to give the repair to someone else.
No, its more like a technician bodges a repair, makes it work but voids the car warranty. So the boss tells him to do it again properly and stop breaking warranty conditions.
I may have mentioned this before, either herein or perhaps on another forum, if you've heard it before, suffer. This reminds me of a case (I'm not a lawyer, just someone who knows a lawyer that told us about the case afterward) that happened in Tennessee a few years ago. I hope my memory on this is correct..... A young woman stole a Mercedes somewhere in or near Knoxville TN. She proceeded to head west on I-40 toward Nashville, TN. The police began chasing her because of the vehicle theft, and the race was on. Somewhere short of Nashville, other police were in the process of trying to stop her, either via a roadblock or sticks. One policeman was at the edge of the highway when Miss High Speed Driver swung the Mercedes toward him, hit, and killed him. She was captured soon thereafter. She was charged with vehicular homicide or whatever TN law permits, and the case was nearing trial. She was offered a plea deal, and her grandmother objected, saying something like "Don't do it, take your chances in court, you'll get a better deal - either get a lesser sentence or will beat it entirely". The case went to trial. She got a better deal alright, she was found guilty and given a sentence several years longer than the plea Granny objected to.
Well this goes to show .. you should be more interested in your case than your lawyer is . They can give you options but you make the desions .. a d if you want to make an informed descion ..you should edicate your self ..not just listen to your lawyer ...or granny
On the one hand, it bothers me by how many jury trials produce punishments far in excess of plea bargains -- on the other hand, in this case, I'm pleased with the result. I can't decide if the gulf between plea and jury sentencing is an indictment of the plea bargaining system, or the jury system, or both. (Likely both, although I lean heavily against plea bargaining in no small part because of the way it essentially nullifies jury trials.)
Agreed.. 95 0ercet are plea.... if the state has evedence then make the procecutor give the people justice .. other wise let the acused go free.. its a system desigined for profit not justice .. qnother thing is ..bonds.. get rid of the bonds man... not needed now adays ...
Disagree. What is in the transcript is what should be seen by the judge. Not if the accused was a minority, or a female, or indigent, young, poorly groomed, or spoke with a heavy accent. The judge shouldn't be looking at the defense attorney remembering the last time they met and that client of his. The judge shouldn't be looking at the prosecutor reliving their round of golf at their country club. He should be looking at the evidence before him. That evidence is black and white, without emotion, bias, or color. Just as it was read by the Ninth Circuit or anyone else. Second, the judge's response is why Congress initiated sentencing guidelines. HIS experience as a prosecutor and later as a "hanging judge" show he crossed the line. Repeatedly. While I saw it long before the quote from the defense attorney came out, apparently this judge rarely, if ever, considered someone "a minor trafficker". The guidelines are as much a part of sentencing as the range Congress passed. If a judge can not remain inside the law, as written by Congress and interpreted by the appeal courts, he shouldn't be on the bench. Third, any time a judge tells an appeal court that he knows better than they do, he is undeserved of his bench. He might be better educated, far more wittier, handsomer than the devil, have a photographic memory, and even have more experience before the law. But the law has determined that the appeal courts get to determine what the law means. I do not know, but I firmly believe that this judge has been overturned several times on appeal for his sentencing. Far more than what the defense attorney alluded to. Just his response to the Ninth Circuit shown his hubris and narcissism. *** I wish we could put every drug trafficker in prison for the rest of their lives. But I don't write the laws.
There’s mess enough I think for all the judges involved, granted it’ll focus on the judge who had his case appealed, the judges in the appeals court are not immune from blowback. consider - if your court gets famous for making nonsensical decisions not based on facts or laws?
The 9th circuit Court of appeals is the worst federal court the country has. They are the most overturned and the stretching of things they do to reach their conclusions is ludicrous. I went through California's police academy and we were taught about a case where the cops saw what looked like to be a drug deal going down they started walking towards the suspects to make contact. They immediately ran while running one of them threw away the drugs the cops chase them down and arrested them. The 9th circuit threw it all out saying that those people in the drug deal were in custody from the moment the cops got there which was unlawful and the throwing away of the drugs was because of an unlawful arrest and therefore finding the drugs was result of an illegal search. Obviously this was overturned but that's the insanity this court goes to!
For those of us who don't understand how it works, can you explain how the reversal rate of the small number of cases that are accepted by SCOTUS tells us something useful?
@@suedenim9208 the supreme Court tends to only accept president setting cases as well as the most extreme Court screw UPS in lower courts. There aren't a lot of cases that are going to get to the supreme Court from any Court but the 9th still has more reversals than any court. That Court's rulings make slightly less sense than a court with nothing but down syndrome kids would make
@@christopherdavis765 So you're saying that huge number of reversals actually represent just a minuscule number of the ruling they made? And that it doesn't say anything about what SCOTUS thought of those other rulings, except that they didn't feel a need to overturn them?
The fourth circuit eating itself, followed by the ninth circuit eating itself, the second circuit ignore SCOTUS, suggests that the judiciary is beginning to implode.
Pretty much. It really makes sense though, the circuit rulings only applying within their circuit is a sign that there isn't much shared confidence in the law as practiced across the nation and that erodes the authority of the shepard herding the cats... catherd... of the various circuits. The basic ideology of judges across America varies so much that the open interpretation and bench legislation of common law means that incompatible rulings and power struggles are a foregone conclusion. Political sensibilities were the only things keeping things together this long and those civilities are looking quite frayed.
Depends on what they were smuggling. At this point, smuggling weed is somewhere close to smuggling counterfeit Gucci bags. On the other end of the spectrum… Caught smuggling fentanyl? Punishment should be death with the possibility of commutation to life should they give up a higher level trafficker resulting in a conviction.
The smuggling of drugs has changed. The cartels will get the drugs to the border, but its the clients problem to get them across. Generally, but not always, the people getting caught are low level. They're just paid couriers. The real "kingpins" on this side of the border rarely even see the drugs, much less touch them. I recommend the Koncrete podcast featuring Johnny Mitchell or Roger Reeves. There is also the channel "The Connect with Johnny Mitchell." Both go into great detail about drug smuggling.
@@ipissed No. But apparently this judge thought that mules make decisions regarding what the Cartel does. For someone that supposedly has a collective over 25 years experience. He seems to have a limited view of what someone in CHARGE does.
I was going to argue they might be a unwilling mule and not know what they were carrying but since they had both been busted previously it seems unlikely they didn't know what they were doing.
@@mvpfocus just the amount makes they a major player. The average mule doesn’t move that much. Most swallow a few bags. That weight makes you a major player because cartels won’t trust just anyone with that much valuable product.
@@rationalbushcraft Exactly. That's why any McDonald's employee filling an order that costs more than $25 is automatically gets anew job title that makes them a low level manager.
@@rationalbushcraft While that seems plausible, it's still just an assumption... which is _not_ a finding of fact. The amount of drugs is already another factor in sentencing.
When 47 lb is an amount considered minor player, one does wonder what is the major amount required ? The 9th circuit is the most overturned appeals court so there is that .
The amount is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter how much they were carrying, the people carrying the drugs aren't the ones making decisions, putting those people in jail doesn't deter anything because there's an endless supply of poor people who can be bought or threatened to do this simple task.
@@M167A1 While your theory satisfies your bloodlust. It does nothing to curtail drug abuse. As proven by the steady rise in drug use from the 1930’s through to the 1990’s. Highest Prison sentences for abusers. NO drop in demand. Or in smuggling.
@@suedenim9208 it's people like yourself that have caused the police to become the rabid, wild, animals they are today. Punish punish punish, don't worry about finding the root of any issue, just throw people in jail where they can rot away out of your sight. It's a lazy solution that suits vengeful people.
The crux of the matter is whether or not these defendants were minor participants in these drug smuggling cases. They were both paid relatively minor amounts. They were just mules. That's a minor role, even if the quantity of drugs is major. As long as our sentencing guidelines include the "minor role" clause, it should be applied. We've seen judges before who rely on their experience (and bias, as a former prosecutor, sometimes) to over-sentence defendants. That experience doesn't make the over-sentencing correct. I hate the illegal drug trade. I wish we could do more to get the top people who are behind it, but we are bankrupting our country by putting so many low-level dealers and users in prison. We need to attack the root-causes of drug use, and the original sources of the drugs if we want to solve this problem.
@@coupledyetivonvanderburg5385 If Mexico agreed, that could be done. Without agreement, it's just Russia and Ukraine, American style. (And frankly, there are too many powerful corporations depending on cheap labor in Mexico for the US Congress to ever agree.)
The getting out for time served means she will be back doing it next week. If they are caught again and again they are clearly not minor, and show they are doing this for money.
I will say, the judge saying he based his decision on his experience as a judge and prosecutor isn't exactly what I would like to hear. I would rather hear that he based his determination that the guilty parties weren't minor players on the evidence presented in the case. Because by definition, his experience as a judge and prosecutor came in other cases. Without that reference to specific evidence, but with reference to prior experience, it sounds a little like he had some gut feeling or intuition that he was confident applied in this case because it had applied in others. Not how its supposed to work.
Being an ex Californian I have little to no use for the 9th circuit, but I am glad to see judges call out the higher courts as they are not infallible or always right, Our justice system has had a pecking order that has lasted way to long, from the Supreme court down they have all made mistakes, Every department and department head including the supreme court and the presidents needs to be publicly criticized when they screw up. No level of government or branch of government should be exempt from criticism or having their mistakes publicly pointed out.
Based on many of the blatantly unconstitutional rulings that have come from the 9th circuit, I’m convinced that competence is a disqualifying factor when selecting judges to serve on the 9th circuit.
A USSC Guidelines sentence calculation is driven by points aggregating an 'adjusted offense level'. The offense of conviction starts with a 'base offense level'. To that, adjustments can be made. For instance, a leader or organizer gets +2 or +3 (depending on level: kingpin. LT, et cet); a 'minor' participant gets -2; and a participant who was involved in the conspiracy but as an underling gets no adjustment, i.e, he or she gets the 'base offense level'. The determination between a minor player and a regular participant is typically fact-specific and made initially as part of the PreSentence Report by U.S. Probation, charged with preparing the PSIR. Such decisions when made by the Presiding Judge are supposed to be given deference by appeals courts. Counsel for defendants can object to such proposed finding and get an evidentiary hearing before the judge makes a final determination at sentencing. It's not done lightly. No wonder the trial judge is pissed but kudos to defendants' appeal counsel!
@@arthursmith6854 Wrong. The Eighth Circuit and Sixth Circuits are overturned more than the Ninth. The problem is the Ninth is larger than half the other circuits combined, so in terms of sheer numbers, they probably do get overturned more. But on a percentage of cases, not by a long shot.
The problem for the judge is he is what is known as a "hanging judge". People are appealing his sentences for a reason. I have no love for drug traffickers, but if the judge can't follow the law, he shouldn't be on the bench.
@@alanmcentee3035 In 2021 the 9th Circuit Court had the highest rate of reversals by the US Supreme Court of any Circuit Court.. At one point during the year, the Supreme Court reversed 15 out of 16 cases.
THINK ABOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT of today the lack of jail time and releases instead of long sentences for the crime of the drug running of drugs into our nation ! more like whom gets to do drug sales in the USA ! for injustice !...
The judge's years of experience allowed him to separate the wheat from the chaff and come to the correct decision. EVERY person involved in drugs tries to paint themselves as a small cog in a much larger machine. And the eventual outcome of the woman's case shows why.
@@ericvoge6678 Yeah, but the line is really stupid. Largely because YT is far more interested in maximizing clicks than in good content for the channel's target audience.
What else is an appeal court there for? Surely they're just there to ensure the law (and associated rules) are applied- not to establish facts. Was the original trial a bench trial, or was there a jury there to do fact finding? If the latter, then the judge should just apply the rules, and not double-guess the jury, right?
6:50 That doesn't sound right from the appeals court. Deciding the facts of the case is the role of the lower court. The appeals court can only rule on matters of law. Only if it is defined in law what constitutes a major or minor participant in a crime is it inappropriate for the lower court to make that decision and appropriate for the appeals court to opine on it.
The illegal drug problem in the U.S. isn’t going to be solved unless we get people to stop snorting, smoking, injecting and swallowing drugs. Until that happens, the drug epidemic isn’t going away anytime soon. A little off topic, I know, but worth a mention anyway.
And there are too few stories of Generals, most notably Gen. Jim Mattis, who reportedly went out on patrol more than a few times, with a riffle and engaged hostile forces while being Commanding General. Whilst he may not have done this every day, It became one of the legends about Gen. Mattis. There was also a 3-Star F-22 pilot flying missions over Syria, and dropping live ordinance on targets, whilst in command of Air Forces, CENTCOM
It would have been interesting if all of the judges in the original judge's district supported his rebuttal and recused themselves from the cases, on the same grounds that he did. What would have happened then ... the Appeals Court would have had no court to return to sentencing to?
Appellate Courts are able to issue their own orders, and their own mandates. If there truly was no valid lesser Court to receive the mandate, then the Court of Appeals would issue an order dispensing justice themselves. Or to put it more succinctly: the Court of Appeals' authority is not contingent on the consent of the trial court, it is just usually the case that the trial court procedurally imposes a modification to the case of original jurisdiction.
Can the prior experience of the judge also suggest he has opinions formed before trial and is considering matters not presented at trial? That is: was his mind made up before trial?
@@petnaby The defense attorney pointed out that this judge had been overturned several times previously for excessive sentences. Add in that he used to be a prosecutor and that suggests he leans hard to the right.
Steve wrong. We need to throw the book at the lower level people. The risk reward is in their favor. Decades of going after the bigger fish have proved fruitless. The low level player SEEs what he or she is doing to the commmunity and turns a blind eye. Thats 1000x worse thensome mid level dealer. The 'pawns' see the destruction they are bringing down on the community. The mid level guy just sees money... the pawn looks into the peoples eyes and says F'it. We just churn though 'pawns and low level' people NEVER making a dent into the high level people. The only high level people you get are set up by their own crew or underlings and the underling becomes the boss. We need it make it so the 'pawns' or low level people rather work a crap 9-5 then sell on mule on the streets. This holywood idea of going after the 'big fish' needs to end. All people in the kill chain of drugs should be harshly treated.
The disagreement is the sentencing not the verdict. In the appeals court opinion, the trial judge did not follow the Federal guidelines on sentencing. There are no findings on fact really to consider
@@mojoman2001 "Taxpayers pay to appeal practically every guilty plea with active time. " Few ever make it to the appeals court. With the exception of capital offenses, appeals aren't automatic.
The only real appeal to a plea is if the prosecution fails to follow the plea agreement to the letter ... meaning .. plea agreements are a contract and both parties must follow the contractbor the other party cant be held to it ..
@@jamesgibson5876 : You're leaving out that the judge isn't the prosecutor, and, as such (as your defense attorney SHOULD point out to you), is NOT "bound" by any "plea bargain" made INDEPENDENTLY between you (through your attorney), and the prosecutor. Also, the judge, cannot get involved in the actual bargaining, because that would constitute "practicing law from the bench", he/she is necessarily limited to either accepting, or denying the bargain, as made, and brought forth, by the prosecutor.
@@daleallen7634 correct the judge will tell you this before accepting your plea and tell you tge range of sentence .. then he will ask you ..knowing this ..do you still wish to ontinue with this plea? .. then you answer yes or no... . Tey have plea agreements prettywell sewn up ..not much to appeaal to... except failue of the proceution to follow the agreement ..such as .. if the procecutor said they had agreed to not make a recomendation for sentence ..but they had already provided the judge with items that wod cause the judje to add to the sentence.. ..after wards you could show that the state supreme court has decided in perevious case ...that the state equates ..making no recomendation for scentencing as making no damadging statement .. there fore .. the procecution has failed to follow the plea agree ment.. Ask me how i know
it happens everywhere in every job I've had where the people who don't actually do the job tell you how to do what they can't. in the early '80s I had a beginner job at a Taco bell. there was a large vegetarian pop in the area and regulars would come in for the bean burritos. the boss forced me to greet everyone with "would you like to try our burrito supreme (meat) today?" even to the nonmeat eaters. those customers were disappointed in me as everyone likes to have their needs met. I felt like a fool. I quit soon after as he was also a creep. as I matured and had better skills/education it still continued to happen. most of my work experience was in the field but it didn't stop upper management trying to muck things up from on high. I never saw them except on rare occasions, they didn't have the skills themselves, but it still didn't stop them from idiotic actions. and wage theft if they could. i became a union steward to stop that!
If there should be a law against any thing ..taco bell should be added to the list ... that is the worst shit in the world .. .. if i were you i wouldnt admit to any one i ever worked there
@@jamesgibson5876 I own up to my mistakes - and it was 40 years ago! it was brand new in MA at that time and i believe a bit different than today's version but i'm not a fan of any fast food unless in a pinch
I’ve got to say I wouldn’t be a Judge, no matter what the pay or conditions, my friends who are Appeal Judges tell me their first job is to protect the Constitution and their second job is to apply the law, followed by the duty to protect the Trial Judge.
The judge has seen a lot of "these cases". So I guess he's seen a lot of defendants who work for someone with "connections". Why is it almost impossible to get information about judges before an election? And who spends so much money putting their name everywhere to get them elected?
How could that be? Trials would be a lot longer if nobody can rely on any lived experiences nor common sense. What would a law banning those things even look like?
@@randomnobody660 Common sense isn't very common, is it? And what the 74 million people who voted for Trump think is common sense isn't altogether what I consider common sense.
I hate YT filters, but anyone who has this amount of (substances) should be sentenced harshly. I am sick and tired of reading about people bringing in hundreds or thousands of (small candy-like objects) where a single one is enough to (permanently sleep) 3 humans. You don't want 20 years? Give up the boss.
How do you tell the difference between a judge whose experience genuinely tells him that she's not a minor player, vs an activist judge who simply thinks the sentences are too low and makes up excuses for a higher sentence?
@Gretchen K. The Ninth Circuit is saying that the judge did not consider all the evidence. As a former prosecutor that has been overturned multiple times, it appears the judge is biased.
@Gretchen K. I'm clarifying that the lower court Judge's reasoning is specious. Years of knowledge and experience with similar cases has zero to do with the facts or the lack thereof in this specific case supporting the sentence. Apparently, this is not a one-off occurrence, either. So, the appellate court is cracking down on a Judge that likes to give longer sentences than the guidelines, based on nothing more than his gut.
@Gretchen K. Perhaps if the lower court could demonstrate those findings of fact, you'd have a point. But it cannot, because there are none. Facts are objective, not obscure ideas that only apply to certain courts.
@Gretchen K. I'm guessing that you're not as experienced as either judge in this case. This isn't a credentials measuring contest. It's funny how your fallacy lines up almost perfectly with the lower court Judge's assertion that his extensive experience somehow makes him immune to mistakes or overreach. _It does not._
You may not be able to ask the question about the reason that the Appeals Court Judge would show such special concern for the sentencing of these two criminals, but I will. The relaxed sentence for the female criminal is not a good look for either the Appalate Court nor for the newly assigned Federal Judge.
I agree that a lot of information is lost when words are put to text but to me that's just more reason to push for better recordings of court procedures, not to limit appeals courts.
If the evidence for harsher conviction can’t be read in the transcript this is a case of a judge saying “trust me bro”. I agree that experience means a lot in a profession but we if accept that a judge’s feelings can override the standard application of the law that opens the door for huge injustices. Almost every day Steve has a story of an “experienced” judge caught misbehaving, so to speak. I know nothing about this particular case and it’s frankly irrelevant. I prefer a criminal getting a shorter sentence than an innocent jailed unjustly.
The transcript will only have the evidence. it won't show if the defense attorney is a person of color or the accused is unkempt. It won't show how buddy buddy the judge and prosecutor are. Everything the appeal court should see should be in that transcript.
@@pansepot1490 Exactly. A bunch of people using good grammar to lie is just as obvious in a transcript as it is to people listening and watching them in the courtroom, so it's ridicuous for a lower court to claim they knew anything an appeals court can't know by reading the transcript.
In my jurisdiction for a mule carrying 47 pounds of meth and 5 pounds of heroin, 1st offender, let alone a repeat offender, would be 15 years minimum to serve.
Self defense is an Affirmative Defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant. He was in another man's home that he had no business being in and had absolutely no witness to his claim that he was not already holding the gun, but only grabbed the gun after the decedent "lunged" at him. So we have to believe that he was in a closet full of guns and he did not grab one of the guns for protection, he only grabbed the gun mid lunge. And the burden of proof is on this idiot that he did not lay in wait and kill this poor man, that he only grabbed a gun at the very last second because the decedent was mid lunge. Which conveniently is the absolute only scenario which would allow him to claim self defense, and the burden is on him.
For me it sounds like a ex-Prosecutor finally got the chance to "sentence people as he thought they should be sentenced". Aka, much worse -then- than another judge would have done. And he was called out for it. He is not supposed to be the prosecutor. He is supposed to be the judge!
