Friday, January 14, 2005
Many may be wondering whether Martha Stewart's sentence gets reduced because of the Booker decision. Will this happen automatically? No. Can the attorneys file for a reduction in sentence? Yes. Will they? Not sure. According to a CCN Report "Attorneys for Stewart said Thursday that they were studying whether the high court decision could lead to an early release for their client."
Cases where the guidelines have mandated an enhancement of a sentence are the most likely ones to be on the chopping block post-Booker. And some of these clearly warrant review. For example, "Olis, the ex-Dynegy executive who is serving more than 24 years behind bars," should be up at the front of the line when it comes to reviewing sentences. This is a case where as reported by CNN "the trial judge himself indicated he was reluctant to impose the sentence." Because "Olis was found guilty of participating in a fraud whose value exceeded $100 million[, ] [s]entencing rules automatically tacked more than 10 years onto his prison term." Booker may come to the rescue in cases such as this, but that's because it should be there in order to neutralize mandatory guidelines that were in some cases totally unrealistic.
But Martha? She may have better fish to fry with her Crawford issue and the issue of not allowing her an instruction that would have informed the jury that she was not being tried for insider trading.