April 24, 2009
District court resists excessive piling of mandatory minimum 924(c) sentences
Thanks to this post at the Second Circuit Sentencing Blog, I discoverd a notable opinion from last month by Judge Jed Rakoff dealing with extreme mandatory minimum stacking 924(c) gun sentences. Though the procedural posture and precise ruling US v. Ballard, 599 F. Supp. 2d 539 (S.D.N.Y. March 2, 2009), is complicated, this closing line captures the spirit of the ruling: "When the letter of the law so far departs from justice as to become the instrument of brutality, common sense should call a halt."
April 24, 2009 at 11:28 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference District court resists excessive piling of mandatory minimum 924(c) sentences:
There is a circuit split on the application of the consecutive when there is another, greater, MM sentence that could apply, y'know. In the 2d Cir. when there is a higher mandatory that applies (usually ACCA's 15 yr), the 2d Cir. says that you don't apply the consecutive under 924(c). The opinion came out in, er, June of '08, I believe. Whitley is the case name. So, if you are a ACCA defendant in the 2d you get a reprieve from the consecutive sentence - in the other circuits? Pound sand.
Posted by: dweedle | Apr 28, 2009 9:54:27 AM