December 18, 2007
AFDA webcast on lastest federal sentencing developments
As detailed on this page, Gregory Nicolaysen, the founder of the Association of Federal Defense Attorneys (AFDA), has organized another of his great audio webcast for this Wednesday (December 19) at 12noon ET to allow me to discuss Kimbrough, Gall, the new crack guidelines and related federal sentencing happenings and its possible aftermath.
Unlike other groups seeking big bucks for webcasts, the AFDA usually only charges a nominal fee and the Greg has made this webcast free for everyone. The webcast will be an informal interview conducted over live streaming audio, with accompanying text posted to a viewing screen and links to PDF files containing materials relevant to the topics discussed. To attend this webcast, simply:
- Go to the AFDA home page and put your cursor on the Audio Webcast bar, then...
- In the drop-down menu that appears, select "Attend A Webcast," then...
- Enter the following: Username: AFDA (all caps; case-sensitive); Password: 121907
Though I plan primarily to recap and expand upon some commentary already appearing here, I'd be grateful if readers might use the comments to note any issues that seem particular important for me to cover during this webcast.
December 18, 2007 at 08:08 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AFDA webcast on lastest federal sentencing developments:
One crack cocaine sentencing reduction issue that I still don't fully understand is: why not make the sentences equal for equal amounts? What is the justification for a cautious partial reduction?
Posted by: Robert Berman, layman | Dec 18, 2007 11:12:23 PM
I'm especially interested in the mechanics of the resentencing process. For instance, is it clear that resentencing will be under Booker, with revisitation of all guideline findings that went into the original sentence, or will resentencing be limited to the change introduced by the amendment as though it existed at the time of original sentencing (even if the original sentencing was pre-Booker)? To my mind, this issue could significantly complicate the resentencing process.
Posted by: vkr | Dec 19, 2007 10:43:04 AM
One of the supervising AUSAs in our district said the reason retroactive application was delayed until March was to allow Congress to undue it. This AUSA would not agree to motions filed before March because he was told that Congress would be "fixing the disaster" created by the Sentencing Commission before the March deadline. Do you have any information on pending Legislation?
Posted by: TStaab | Dec 19, 2007 11:00:38 AM