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