« Interesting group of cert grants from SCOTUS | Main | "Pot Activist Sentenced To 10 Years For Growing 1,000 Plants" »

May 18, 2009

Any last-minute predictions about the Lori Drew cyber-bullying case?

As detailed in this new Los Angeles Times posting, Lori Drew, who was "convicted of committing a hoax on the social networking site MySpace that led to the suicide of a 13-year-old girl, is scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in federal court in downtown Los Angeles."  As I have highlighted in prior posts, there are lots of interesting legal issues and sentencing questions raised by this case.  In addition to the basic question of what sentence Drew might/should be given for her three misdemeanor convictions, there is the preliminary issue of whether her convictions should be dismissed and the procedural issue of whether her crime has "victims" who should be permitted to testify at her sentencing hearing.

Just for kicks, I will make some last-minute predictions (that might soon look silly):  I predict that Drew's motion to dismiss is denied, that the victims get to testify at her sentencing, and that Drew gets a sentence of a few months of home confinement.  But this is just wild speculation.  Any other guesses

Some related prior posts:

UPDATE:  Apparently the District Court will keep Lori Drew's legal limbo for at least another 6 weeks.  As this new Wired report now explains, following "an hour of discussion with prosecutors and Drew’s defense attorney, U.S. District Judge George Wu indicated he was still weighing a defense motion to overturn the jury verdict in the case and that he needs to review transcripts from the trial to weigh both the motion to overturn and the sentencing.  Sentencing is now set for July 2nd."

May 18, 2009 at 04:37 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Any last-minute predictions about the Lori Drew cyber-bullying case?:


I agree with Prof. Berman.

However, that outcome is outrageous, since it is unlawful, unfair, and bad public policy.

Prof. Kerr should take the case to the Supreme Court. He should find a professional appellate court advocate to manage it. Prof. Kerr is one of the few good guys, an advocate for freedom, and I have no personal criticism. The implications of the case are important, and deserve top representation.

He and I differ in my argument the prosecution should be personally destroyed. They should spend their entire time fending off personal legal attacks, as should the cult criminal on the bench.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 18, 2009 4:54:44 PM

I don't know. The lantern and pitchfork mob are up for this one. I'll guess she'll do some time.

Actually, I'm still somewhat amazed the creative federal prosecutors working their novel theory failed to hang a felony conspircy rap on her.

Federal conspiracy charges typically are to trials what Mr. Miyagi's "crain technique" is to actual combat: "No can defense."

In fact, I covered a trial last year in which the jury broke from deliberations to ask if it were "possible" to acquit on a conspiracy charge in a mortgage fraud case. After having listened for the first time to jury instructions for conspiracy I could easily understand their confusion.

Posted by: John K | May 19, 2009 10:56:33 AM

Lawyer language is bad faith. It is an unlawful conversion of the public chattel of the law. It forces the hiring of lawyers. That is why it is essential to ban, by Amendment, lawyers from all benches, legislative seats, and policy positions in the executive branch. They form the world' biggest, wealthiest, and most powerful criminal syndicate. Beyond organized crime, they are a criminal cult enterprise, forcing sicko, supernatural Medieval garbage core doctrines on a secular nation.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | May 20, 2009 7:08:57 AM

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