Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Possibly not, I guess it’d be up to the judge but I did see a great comment yesterday that because of the timing of the plea during the pandemic she’s going to end up on Full House arrest.

[pietasterp]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Not many questions to be raised, that's the way it is and the way it's been forever, not even news. There's a SCOTUS case from 1977, Bordenkircher v Hayes where a guy committed forgery, for a sentence between 2-10 years. Prosecutor said take a deal and we'll give you 5 years, reject it and I'll charge you under a 3 strikes law and you'll get life. He rejected the deal, was charged under the 3 strikes law, and got life. The Supreme Court decision was it's not unreasonable to charge someone with something they're guilty of...it is of course also the prosecution's job to prove guilt, thus coercive plea bargaining was sanctioned by the highest court in the land.



In this specific case I'd say it's a mistake to look at the disparity in charges because Huffman and Loughlin weren't accused of the exact same crime to begin with. Huffman paid 15k to have someone take an SAT test, Loughlin paid 500k to have that whole crew thing staged and paid out bribes to people at the school.

The case you cite is not relevant because the argument is not about whether plea deals, used correctly, can offer leniency in exchange for admissions of guilt. That is their intended purpose.

In this particular case, the prosecutors unveiled new charges (which were not part of the original indictments) one day after 4 of the families accepted plea deals. It is important to note (vis-à-vis your case law example and argument above) that the new charges do not allege new actions. Prosecutors were simply trying to ramp up pressure against the remaining 23 parents, coaches and other defendants who had not caved and were preparing for trial in the "Varsity Blues" case.

Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, a year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service, and a $30,000 fine. By adding charges against Loughlin (and other parents) of conspiracy to commit bribery and money laundering, prosecutors are adding months and even years of additional prison time in the event the parents are convicted; these new charges carry prison sentences of up to 25 years. Now, there was absolutely no way any of those people would receive sentences that harsh, but it's abundantly clear that the prosecutors want to punish them not just for the offenses they are alleged to have committed, but also for insisting on going to trial. What's more, the new indictments include asset forfeiture requests should the defendants be convicted.

I realize it's hard to separate personal feelings about these rich, entitled jerks and no one is saying they shouldn't be punished, but this case represents a very public example of a problem that has been ongoing in the criminal justice system for decades now. You won't care until it's you or someone you care about that gets involved in the legal justice system, then you will care quite a bit.

[pietasterp]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Possibly not, I guess it’d be up to the judge but I did see a great comment yesterday that because of the timing of the plea during the pandemic she’s going to end up on Full House arrest.

[insert rim shot here]

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

The case you cite is not relevant because the argument is not about whether plea deals, used correctly, can offer leniency in exchange for admissions of guilt. That is their intended purpose.

In this particular case, the prosecutors unveiled new charges (which were not part of the original indictments) one day after 4 of the families accepted plea deals. It is important to note (vis-à-vis your case law example and argument above) that the new charges do not allege new actions. Prosecutors were simply trying to ramp up pressure against the remaining 23 parents, coaches and other defendants who had not caved and were preparing for trial in the "Varsity Blues" case.

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Are you saying there were no new alleged actions in B v Hayes or for Loughlin? There were none in Bordernkircher v Hayes, he was had 2 strikes and they said if you don't take this deal we'll go back and make this your 3rd. For all we know, they told Huffman if you plead now, we won't bring these extra charges against you and that's why she folded and Loughlin just didn't.

Felicity Huffman pleaded guilty to mail fraud and was sentenced to 14 days in prison, a year of supervised release, 250 hours of community service, and a $30,000 fine. By adding charges against Loughlin (and other parents) of conspiracy to commit bribery and money laundering, prosecutors are adding months and even years of additional prison time in the event the parents are convicted; these new charges carry prison sentences of up to 25 years. Now, there was absolutely no way any of those people would receive sentences that harsh, but it's abundantly clear that the prosecutors want to punish them not just for the offenses they are alleged to have committed, but also for insisting on going to trial. What's more, the new indictments include asset forfeiture requests should the defendants be convicted.

I realize it's hard to separate personal feelings about these rich, entitled jerks and no one is saying they shouldn't be punished, but this case represents a very public example of a problem that has been ongoing in the criminal justice system for decades now. You won't care until it's you or someone you care about that gets involved in the legal justice system, then you will care quite a bit.

It doesn't have anything to do with them being rich for me, to me what you're describing as "something that has been ongoing for decades" is the way it has always been, and that's because it's the purpose of the system. The plea system is about a favor for a favor, you take a lesser charge and they get you out of the way, don't do the favor and they hit you over the head. The system is trash, but when was it different?

[pietasterp]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Can you elaborate on the bolded? Are you saying there were no new alleged actions in B v Hayes or for Loughlin? There were none in Bordernkircher v Hayes, he was had 2 strikes and they said if you don't take this deal we'll go back and make this your 3rd. For all we know, they told Huffman if you plead now, we won't bring these extra charges against you and that's why she folded and Loughlin just didn't.

Sure, to clarify: prosecutors did not allege new criminal action by Loughlin, but they simply added additional charges onto indictment (in order to pressure her/punish her for going to trial).

You are correct that each case has its own nuances and details.

It doesn't have anything to do with them being rich for me, to me what you're describing as "something that has been ongoing for decades" is the way it has always been, and that's because it's the purpose of the system. The plea system is about a favor for a favor, you take a lesser charge and they get you out of the way, don't do the favor and they hit you over the head. The system is trash, but when was it different?

I never said it had anything to do with their being rich. It's actually the exact opposite point that I'm making; this is a highly visible example (because they're rich/famous) of a problem endemic in prosecution in general in the justice system. That's why I keep emphasizing that "Yes, I know these particular defendants are not particularly sympathetic, but the larger point that the case is illustrating is what matters". In other words, I'm not arguing anyone should care because they are rich/famous, I'm saying caring in spite of the fact that they are rich and famous is important because regular folks get this treatment every day.

I agree this is the way it has been for a long time, but I vehemently disagree that this is the "purpose" of the system. Plea deals were originally designed to be about mercy for those who admit culpability; in the present day system, they’re about intimidating defendants into giving up the right to a trial.

This behavior by federal prosecutors is both common and a frustrating subversion of the criminal justice process - don't let the fact that "this is how it's been for decades" allow anyone to think that means it's right or how it's supposed to work. Despite our constitutional right to a trial, >90% of all criminal cases are resolved with plea deals, according to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). You can quibble with the exact numbers, but it's a lot anyway you slice it. That presumes that >90% (and closer to 97%) are guilty on arraignment, in which case, why have a trial? Does anyone believe that law enforcement/prosecutors get it right 97% of the time?

Americans are essentially losing their Sixth Amendment right to a trial because of the massive charging disparity between the offenses prosecutors offer in a plea deal and the offenses they take to trial. The mere decision to charge triggers a domino effect making a guilty plea the only rational choice in most cases. And as trials and hearings decline, so too does government accountability. Government mistakes and misconduct are rarely uncovered, or are simply resolved in a more favorable plea bargain. Studies of exonerations have determined that hundreds of people who serve prison time for crimes that it later turns out they didn't commit had pleaded guilty in the hopes of less punishment.

What's happening to Loughlin and these other parents happens to hundreds of poorer, less connected defendants every day across the country. But we should be careful not to see it as karmic "balance" that a small group of wealthy, privileged parents is now getting railroaded by the system. It's not more "fair" when prosecutorial overreach affects rich people.

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

I think the idea that plea deals were designed with mercy in mind shows an optimism for human nature that I just don't share and haven't seen exhibited in any of the history of criminal justice I've seen. As for the second part, what I was saying when it doesn't matter if they're rich or not to me already has no bearing on whether I think overcharging is fair. You're mostly preaching to the choir, I think you just separate the idea of getting leniency for an admission of guilt vs. being overcharged for not admitting guilt, when to me it's chicken and egg.

[pietasterp]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

I think the idea that plea deals were designed with mercy in mind shows an optimism for human nature that I just don't share and haven't seen exhibited in any of the history of criminal justice I've seen. As for the second part, what I was saying when it doesn't matter if they're rich or not to me already has no bearing on whether I think overcharging is fair. You're mostly preaching to the choir, I think you just separate the idea of getting leniency for an admission of guilt vs. being overcharged for not admitting guilt, when to me it's chicken and egg.

It's not so much that I'm "optimistic" that plea deals are supposed to be about mercy as it is that is there intended legal purpose. The fact that they are not used that way is one of the reasons they are not even legal in some countries.

I think we're largely in agreement, but there's a disconnect in that you're assuming the plea bargaining being about mercy is an opinion. In strict terms, a "plea" in a criminal trial relates to the issue of guilt or innocence. It is, essentially, a plea that the sentence should be reduced for some reason such as hardship, or because it is a first offence, or the defendant pleaded guilty, or good character etc. (technically "mitigating factors").

So it has nothing to do with being overly optimistic, it has to do with understanding the legal origin of the concept of a plea bargain. Which, in this day and age, I think we agree has largely been forgotten and abused to the point where people don't even know that any more.

But I agree with you entirely that it may not matter at this point, given where we are with the current state of the legal justice system.

[Blzer]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Lori gets two months in prison; her husband, five.

[baconbits11]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Lori gets two months in prison; her husband, five.

U said it all with that pic...so much for justice. The way a court looks differently at rich famous people and a normal person, let alone a poor person of color, is sickening. The scales of Justice lost its blindfold.

Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk

[LambertandHam]

Re: Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin In Hot Water

Lori gets two months in prison; her husband, five.

All that money spent on legal fees, all that wasting of time for two months.