« New Pew report indicates that state prison populations declined in 2009 | Main | Third Circuit upholds bar on sexting prosecution threatened by state DA »

March 17, 2010

"Prosecutors want Nacchio to attend June resentencing"

Th title of this post is the headline of this interesting Denver Post piece.  Here is how it begins:

I cannot recall a case in which the defendant waive a right to appear but the government wanted the defendant to be there.

March 17, 2010 at 01:45 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Prosecutors want Nacchio to attend June resentencing":


this DA is a retard! this is a RESENTENCE! being done because the state screwed up the FIRST TIME!

"In July 2009, a federal appeals court panel ordered a new sentence for Nacchio, ruling that the trial judge miscalculated Nacchio's gains during the initial sentencing."

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 17, 2010 2:01:41 PM

It can be done with Skype, to avoid unnecessary expense of transportation for the taxpayer.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 17, 2010 2:57:48 PM

Curious - during the crack resentencings DOJ went to great lengths to argue that the defndant/inmate had no right to appear . . .

Posted by: anon | Mar 17, 2010 6:17:29 PM


In those resentencings a valid sentence had been entered originally. Here that was not the case. It was only by grace of the executive that the crack offenders got a break, here by contrast the offender has a new sentencing as a matter of right.

I am somewhat surprised that someone is even /allowed/ to waive appearance for sentencing. Though I can understand if the original sentence is already being served why the offender might not wish to go to the trouble of checking out only to get sent back. It's not like he's looking at a time served sentence after the new hearing.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Mar 17, 2010 7:32:11 PM

The US Attorney is playing to the mob, a la Madoff...hoping for a bunch of irate investors to show up and raise hell and affect the Judge's ruling.

Posted by: Mick | Mar 17, 2010 7:33:10 PM

the problem SC is why do it at all. it's nothing but a change in the amount of time. HE'S already in prison to take him out and then to a court just seems to be an added useless expense not to mention a risk of escape.

this would all be diff if the new sentence was going to result in his immediate release.

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 18, 2010 2:30:02 AM

yes anon our govt has become more TWO-FACED every day!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 18, 2010 2:30:54 AM

Still can't help but wonder if Nacchio would have been prosecuted for insider trading if he'd been willing to break the law for the Bush Administration by going along with its warrantless spying program.

Posted by: John K | Mar 18, 2010 7:21:23 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB