- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,325
- Reaction score
- 28,286
That was interesting, thank you.
GUILTY GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #6
- Thread starter Cryptic
- Start date
That was interesting, thank you.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2015
- Messages
- 4,934
- Reaction score
- 44,858
In Canada we don't run into this hierarchal structure of prisons. We have provincial jails and federal penitentiaries but the difference is that provincial jails only house inmates whose criminal convictions lead to sentences of 2 years less a day.
Similar to your state prisons provincial jails are overcrowded many times but most of the crimes are less serious than murder, rape, terrorism or kidnapping. They could be for drug offences, assault, domestic battery, etc. Federal prison is for those convicted of greater crimes. Provincial jails can still house violent offenders who are remanded while awaiting trial, though.
Punishment should fit the crime. It seems odd to me that in the US, federal crimes trump state crimes even though the crimes at state level can be so much more egregious than many federal crimes. Federal prisons house people convicted of mail fraud, identity theft and other white collar crimes. IMO, the severity of each crime should dictate where the prisoner does the time, especially if both federal and state crimes were committed. Just my opinion, though.
Federal prison in Canada is no picnic unless you hit the lottery and get sent to the William Head Institute in BC. You get to play golf and belong to a theatre group and take walks outside the prison walls checking out the view since it's surrounded on three sides by the Pacific Ocean. It's considered a exit transition location for those re-entering society. Still the inmates can be murderers and rapists there, but well behaved ones.
No wonder the MM's are angling for Club Fed. It's sickening really. I feel for Armaud's mother thinking these killers could spend 30 years just lounging around unless they want to take up painting or needlepoint.
Yeah wtf? That statement makes no sense. Is she saying that they all talked and agreed to this and the family were ever so pleased? And then the next day Ahmaud’s family and attorney decided to lie to everyone and lied in court too?
Can’t even trust the assistant general attorney clearly, you have to get everything recorded, in writing and signed.
They could’ve at least come up with a better lie
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,939
There is no way an Assistant US Attorney would enter into an agreement in a case like this without it being approved and signed off on pretty high up in the DOJ. And consultation with victim/family is required.
Well yeah, the family hasn’t denied that they were consulted. A consultation is mandatory, but is it mandatory for them to agree to the terms and sign off on it?
They have said many times that they did not want a plea and they did not want this plea, and communicated as much during the meetings. It would make no sense for them to agree to something to then wake up the next day and plead with the judge not to accept it and say it was done without their consent.
As usual the media hears the churchbell ring, but doesn't know where the clapper hangs, as we would say in Dutch.
The judge didn't reject the plea deal because of the stipulation that Travis McMichael could serve his time in federal prison. The main issue actually seems to be the fact that she would be bound by the 360 months:
Federal judge rejects plea agreement in hate crime case for man who killed Ahmaud Arbery
So the issue here is the sentence duration, not the fact that Travic McMichael would serve his sentence in federal prison.
It's important to emphasize that the question where Travis McMichael serves his sentence is a matter entirely outside the purview of the judge. In this case the state has primary jurisdiction over the defendant, and the federal sentencing judge can not order the delivery of the defendant for service of sentence in a federal institution. Mutatis mutandis, if the State DOC agrees to hand over primary jurisdiction to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I do not see on what grounds the judge could block such a transfer. It's a matter of executive jurisdiction and entirely up to the State DOC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
No, for a plea agreement the victims' agreement isn't mandatory. The Crime Victims' Rights Act only requires that they are consulted.
Agreed on the higher ups. The lawyers for the family have stated previously that they were consulted. I believe even at the recent sentencing they had said (Wanda Cooper-Jones, Ahmaud Arbery's, mom rejects federal plea deal for son's killers, attorney says - CNN) while open to a deal she rejected one that happened before the sentencing as she wanted these men in prison for life rather than having a federal deal supersede what they would get from the state. There is all kinds of wrong going on here.
There might be an overturning of the state convictions (but I doubt it) so the fed position that it guarantees these men are in jail makes sense. There did not seem to be any requirement that these men admit their wrongdoing or even show remorse--- it would have all been reports/testimony from LE. Any fool could see that the justification for the plea was to spend time in a fed prison rather than the less desirable state prison. The deal would not allow any input from the judge or the family as to sentence--again, a slap in the face to the family of a victim to be unable to cite your losses and request specific considerations based on the loss of their loved one. I would say that the family was consulted but didn't like what they heard and thought the feds would come back with something better. Rather than continue to deal with the family, they struck the deal and announced it late on a Sunday night--- were they hoping to get it all in under the wire without people noticing? It seems so.
I can certainly understand that the family feels that the deal was one more marker of an "us versus them" system. While I think a deal would be preferable to a trial in most cases as it means no possible reversal and doesn't put the family through another gut wrenching situation. Ms. Cooper-Jones was eloquent in that the words of the murderer, T. McMichael reverberated in her head since the day he testified--- justifying his behavior and dehumanizing her son. To give him a pass to an easier stretch in prison is too much to stomach, especially since he has not exhibited any remorse or acknowledgment of the humanity of her son upon reflection during his detainment and, now, incarceration.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,275
- Reaction score
- 49,939
This is correct. Prosecutors don't need to get consent to enter plea agreements. Just consult. I have seen quite a few plea agreements that victims or victim's families didn't like. But the prosecutors represent the State/US, not the victims.
But the AUSA's comment that the families attorney told them the family didn't object makes me wonder if the family attorneys maybe didn't drop the ball here.
As usual the media hears the churchbell ring, but doesn't know where the clapper hangs, as we would say in Dutch.
The judge didn't reject the plea deal because of the stipulation that Travis McMichael could serve his time in federal prison. The main issue actually seems to be the fact that she would be bound by the 360 months:
Federal judge rejects plea agreement in hate crime case for man who killed Ahmaud Arbery
So the issue here is the sentence duration, not the fact that Travic McMichael would serve his sentence in federal prison.
It's important to emphasize that the question where Travis McMichael serves his sentence is a matter entirely outside the purview of the judge. In this case the state has primary jurisdiction over the defendant, and the federal sentencing judge can not order the delivery of the defendant for service of sentence in a federal institution. Mutatis mutandis, if the State DOC agrees to hand over primary jurisdiction to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I do not see on what grounds the judge could block such a transfer. It's a matter of executive jurisdiction and entirely up to the State DOC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
"As part of the deal, the McMichaels would have served 30 years in prison for one count of interference with rights. Their sentences would have run concurrently with life sentences handed down earlier this year for state charges, including felony murder. They would have served their federal sentences in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons before being transferred to the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections to serve out the rest of their sentences, officials said." Ahmaud Arbery case: Judge rejects hate crime plea deal for Travis, Greg McMichael
It appears that the agreement was that they would spend 30 years in federal facilities with the remainder of their life without parole in a state facility. So, it appears it was not about who wanted them and a decision by the state but rather part of the terms of the agreement. If it is part of the agreement then the judge would be bound to deliver them to the federal system.....without any judicial discretion. And, if I were the Arbery family, at this point with lots of misconduct that occurred before a trial was had, I would be dubious of a state DOC acting in the interest of justice for my loved one.
Thanks for clarifying. If he dropped the ball that’s a pretty big thing to mess up, but I also think it’s strange that he has vehemently denied this. I wonder if he said that the family was open to a plea and they thought it would be ok and they were happy about this plea, took it and ran with it. But that would be a major miscommunication. I’d like to know what happened bc Ms. Cooper-Jones was clearly blindsided and NOT happy.
Quite frankly, I doubt the proposed plea agreement spelled it out quite so clearly. We haven't seen the actual proposed plea agreement, but I strongly suspect it looks a lot like Chauvin's federal plea agreement, which was also drafted by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and can be found here:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1456711/download
Note that in Chauvin's case it was also widely reported that it was agreed upon that he would serve his sentence in a federal facility. If you read the actual agreement though, you can see that none of the ACTUAL proposed binding stipulations mention anything about that. In fact, the only thing the agreement says about serving time in the federal system is this:
And that's it.
I strongly suspect that Travis McMichael's plea agreement looks a lot similar and has no actual binding stipulation about a state-federal transfer. This makes perfect sense, since such a binding stipulation would be outright unenforceable for several reasons. Firstly, the State of Georgia has primary jurisdiction and must ask or consent to any transfer, yet would not be bound by any federal plea agreement. After all, the plea agreement only binds the defendant, the prosecution and the court (but the court only regarding certain matters, which I will come to shortly). Any stipulation that binds the State of Georgia to a transfer is outright unenforcable, since the State of Georgia is not a party to the agreement.
Secondly, even if the U.S. Attorney wanted to make a deal that included the state relinquishing primary jurisdiction to the feds, and even if they could, and even if they did, that deal would not be binding on the court. The plea was to be under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Now, rule 11(c)(1)(C) has a short list of things that the prosecutor can bind the court to, and “where the defendant will serve his sentence” is definitely not one of them.
So there is zero chance that the description of the effect of the proposed federal plea agreement as reported in the media is accurate, which would be par for the course. Churchbells and clappers people!
As usual the media hears the churchbell ring, but doesn't know where the clapper hangs, as we would say in Dutch.
The judge didn't reject the plea deal because of the stipulation that Travis McMichael could serve his time in federal prison. The main issue actually seems to be the fact that she would be bound by the 360 months:
Federal judge rejects plea agreement in hate crime case for man who killed Ahmaud Arbery
So the issue here is the sentence duration, not the fact that Travic McMichael would serve his sentence in federal prison.
It's important to emphasize that the question where Travis McMichael serves his sentence is a matter entirely outside the purview of the judge. In this case the state has primary jurisdiction over the defendant, and the federal sentencing judge can not order the delivery of the defendant for service of sentence in a federal institution. Mutatis mutandis, if the State DOC agrees to hand over primary jurisdiction to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, I do not see on what grounds the judge could block such a transfer. It's a matter of executive jurisdiction and entirely up to the State DOC and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The judge rejected the deal for two reasons. She said she wanted discretion over sentence length AND she believed the family should be allowed to express their wishes at sentencing, which the deal disallowed.
You're correct that the family's preference about where the 3 serve their sentences isn't binding. I'm thinking it's possible the judge was responding to what seems to have been a communications break down, wherever that occured, and she was trying to ensure the family's wishes were heard on the record.
----
BTW & FWIW, pretty much every legal analyst/attorney I've read or listened to about what happened was appalled the judge rejected the deal. Reasons included:
1. Victim families should not be permitted to dictate sentencing or plea terms. (And by law, aren't).
2. The deal *did* serve the cause of justice, in that the MMs admitted their crimes were motivated by racial hatred. Since the purpose of a federal trial was to achieve that specific outcome, justice was achieved. And it was achieved without expending the money, time, and resources (human & otherwise) of a complex trial.
3. Some commentators were especially critical of the reason the AA family explicitly cited for rejecting the plea- their insistence the 2 spend their time in state, not federal prison.
As one said (one of my favorite attys on Twitter): he understands why the family wishes the absolute worst & most miserable conditions for AA's murderers. But. Bringing the federal charges was essentially intended as plan B, should the 3 escape justice at the State level. (The family was part of a very loud chorus insisting upon those federal charges, IIRC). That it's "freakish" to bring federal charges as insurance but to demand state incarceration if the fed charges stick.
4. The moral component. That it's telling how many *know* how bad state prison conditions are & demand that the 3 are subjected to them. That it may be satisfying to imagine these 3 being subjected to those conditions, but in reality, the majority of peeps confined in h'ellhole state prisons are the poor/ POC, the majority of peeps confined.
I especially agree about that last count. And feel genuinely chastened.
Last edited:
Since none of us has seen the agreement, it can be seen as speculation all around to the terms. That said, news sources that are reliable are reporting that there was a federal transfer provision in the deal --which is what the family objected to. I would not think that they would strenuously object to the 30 year sentence. But, I do think they would be angry about the transfer if that was a provision. In rare cases, judges dismiss the items in a plea deal, especially if the deal seems like all parties are in favor (we have seen some real doozy deals in the past that were hard to believe that a judge would enforce and did). US News (https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...te-crime-case-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery) also states that there was a provision in the agreement that an immediate transfer would happen to federal court. As well, they also report that judge wanted a say in the time and for the Arbery family to have a "say" whatever that means. I speculate that the judge wanted to be able to hear all sides and determine for herself what the sentence would be and how it would be served.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...te-crime-case-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery
"But Arbery's family objected to a provision that sought to transfer Travis McMichael immediately to federal custody from state prison. Arbery's parents argued that conditions in federal prison wouldn't be as tough for the McMichaels.
Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, said she felt strongly that Travis McMichael should serve his entire sentence in a Georgia state prison.
“Please listen to me,” Cooper-Jones told the judge. “Granting these men their preferred choice of confinement would defeat me. It gives them one last chance to spit in my face.”
Wood said she was rejecting the deal because its terms would have locked her into a specific sentence. She said the Arbery family should have a say at sentencing in whatever punishment is ultimately given."
While we have not seen the deal, it appears that what is reported is not made of whole cloth either. Further, what is the benefit to these two killers to plead guilty at this point, they are serving life without parole so the only thing that they could benefit from in this deal is getting a change of state to federal prison for time they are serving.
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...te-crime-case-in-the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery
"But Arbery's family objected to a provision that sought to transfer Travis McMichael immediately to federal custody from state prison. Arbery's parents argued that conditions in federal prison wouldn't be as tough for the McMichaels.
Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, said she felt strongly that Travis McMichael should serve his entire sentence in a Georgia state prison.
“Please listen to me,” Cooper-Jones told the judge. “Granting these men their preferred choice of confinement would defeat me. It gives them one last chance to spit in my face.”
Wood said she was rejecting the deal because its terms would have locked her into a specific sentence. She said the Arbery family should have a say at sentencing in whatever punishment is ultimately given."
While we have not seen the deal, it appears that what is reported is not made of whole cloth either. Further, what is the benefit to these two killers to plead guilty at this point, they are serving life without parole so the only thing that they could benefit from in this deal is getting a change of state to federal prison for time they are serving.
I would say these reasons are strongly linked and not really about state vs. feds. The judge wants:
A: Have some discretion over the sentence length
B: Give the Arbery family a chance to express their wishes about the sentence length.
Sure, during sentencing the Arbery family can also make their displeasure about the potential transfer known, but it's not something the judge can do anything about. It's completely out of her purview.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,130
- Reaction score
- 18,026
Curious to see what the MMs will do.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 13,067
- Reaction score
- 103,528
If so, that just adds to the unfortunate ironies of this situation. If the MMs decide to drop their pleas & go to trial, AA's family is guaranteed to not get what they want. If the MMs are found guilty, they are going to federal, not state prison, right, at least at first? Which is exactly what the family doesn't want. And if they are not found guilty, how is that possibly a win for the family?
If the MMs decide to plead guilty in a plea that allows the judge sentencing discretion, what is a win? A longer sentence is more years they spend in a federal prison, again the opposite of what the family says it wants. Fewer than 30 years & what the judge will be suggesting is that the original plea terms were too harsh & those convicted of hate crime aren't deserving of maximum penalties.
Lots of not winning, it would seem. Sure would have been better if the family had felt listened to & respected, and to have been given the chance to speak up at sentencing, even if their preferences weren't granted.
That's a good question really. As far as I can see their options are:
1. Retract guilty plea, take it to trial. If found guilty, get slapped with a much longer sentence than the plea deal (quite possibly life) and whatever gentlemen's agreement a la Chauvin is in place between the State, feds and the defense regarding a transfer is now completely up in the air. If found innocent, return to state prison to serve the state life sentence.
2. Retain guilty plea with no plea agreement. Avoid unpleasant high profile trial and get credit for pleading guilty. Sentence would most likely be higher than 360 months. Feds would be inclined to honor whatever gentlemen's agreement a la Chauvin is in place between the State, feds and the defense regarding a transfer,since a costly trial is avoided.
3. Quickly hammer out a new plea agreement with the feds that gives the judge a wide sentencing discretion that goes above 360 months (with a cap of 480 months, so 40 years). Avoid unpleasant high profile trial and get credit for pleading guilty. Sentence would most likely be higher than 360 months. Feds would honor whatever gentlemen's agreement a la Chauvin is in place between the State, feds and the defense regarding a transfer, since a costly trial is avoided.
To me it seems 2 or 3 are the best options, but who knows what they'll do?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Staff online
-
SillybillyAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 107
- Guests online
- 3,068
- Total visitors
- 3,175