The 3d Cir opinion on Chaka Fattah et al's corruption convictions is now online. Bottom line: while it overturns certain charges and reinstates others, the number of 10-year concurrent sentences he's still facing means no change in his jail time. www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/16439… (1/)
All the convictions relating to the illegal excess campaign loan from Al Lord and the various schemes to repay him and Tom Lindenfeld stand, including RICO. Convictions relating to the phony Porsche sale, for which the trial court judge directed acquittal, are reinstated. (2/)
As to the bribery charges involving Fattah and Vederman, the Court tossed the convictions based on improper jury instructions pre-McDonnell, with remand for potential retrial on those counts. Here's how the Court sums up its ruling. (3/)
Given that it won't affect Fattah's sentence, the primary reason to retry the bribery charges would be as to Vederman's sentence, as now he's only on the hook for the phony Porsche sale. Here's what the Court suggests as to how that would go. (4/)
The Court sustained the trial judge's rulings as to the dismissal of one juror and as to various evidentiary rulings made.
So, Fattah's functionally in the same position as before (fewer charges, same sentence), but Vederman is in worse shape. Here's why. (5/)
Vederman was facing a 2-yr sentence but was granted bail pending appeal, given the novel, substantial issues under McDonnell. Some of those charges can now be retried. But even if not, he now faces sentencing for the Porsche-related counts, which had been dismissed below. (6/)
Given that the government has leverage from the potentially retriable counts, I anticipate there's room for a deal here on a recommended sentence for Vederman to resolve all pending issues. (7/7) #done#AMA
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Friends, please stop promoting this crap. It's another press stunt from an entities which does them all the time to try to raise money from unsuspecting anti-Trumpers. See, e.g., dailykos.com/stories/2017/6…
It really bothers me to see REVENGE OF THE NERDS listed at all, let alone as high as 8th, on a list like this. Anyone viewing the film with contemporary eyes should be horrified by it. vulture.com/article/25-bes…
The capsule summary says it's "a satisfying series of fulfilled wishes, the nerds get their, you know, revenge."
It's actually watching the Nerds behaving worse than the jocks: spying on, then selling nude pictures of sorority members. And more. (2/)
Lewis, an alleged hero, rapes a woman by deception -- she only consents to sex with him because he's wearing a Darth Vader mask and she thinks it's her actual boyfriend. (3/)
What a patriot sounds like: McCain, 2008 RNC: "And, finally, a word to Senator Obama ... you have my respect and my admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, and that's an association that means more to me than any other."
"I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency, for its faith in the wisdom, justice, and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea."
I never put this together before, but: as @ZephyrTeachout helpfully noted in 2009, part of the argument for why the Senate, not SCOTUS tries impeachments is that, in Gouverneur Morris's words, "The supreme Court were too few in number and might be warped or corrupted." (1/)
Delegate Roger Sherman specifically objected to SCOTUS trying impeachments as being improper "because the Judges would be appointed by him."
That's right, Originalists: the Framers didn't want SCT justices ruling on corrupt acts by the President who nominated them. (2/)
The other thing they did that day was expand the grounds from treason/bribery to include HC&M - George Mason noted "Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason" (3/)
5-2 decision holds that defendant's gangsta rap video, threatening named police officers who were to testify against him in criminal case, is not protected under First Amendment. Convictions for terroristic threats/witness intimidation stand.
Oh, gosh, Justice Wecht's concurring opinion -- on the intent test for such a conviction -- is a fun dive through music. Must've been fun for his clerks. cc: @alyankovicpacourts.us/assets/opinion…
This is, I hope, the first time @train has ever been cited in a judicial opinion.