« Remarkable coda at end of First Circuit opinion affirming child porn sentence | Main | "Iran Executions Increase Since Election" »

August 7, 2009

Jefferson (advisory) jury calls for big forfeiture

As detailed in this article, which is headlined "Jefferson faces financial hits at sentencing: Jury says he should forfeit shares, $470,653," former representative William Jefferson is already dealing with some tough sentencing realities in the wake of his bribery conviction. Here are the basics:

The same jury that convicted the Louisiana Democrat of 11 of 16 corruption charges decided Thursday that he should forfeit $470,653 he collected from his illegal schemes. The jury also said the government should seize stock shares of indeterminate value that Jefferson also received as bribes.

Judge T.S. Ellis III will issue a final forfeiture order when he sentences Jefferson.  The judge scheduled the sentencing hearing for Oct. 30.

In most bribery and racketeering cases that produce guilty verdicts, forfeiture issues are decided directly by the judge.  But the Jefferson legal team chose to exercise its legal right to have a jury hear the issue.

When asked why the Jefferson team made the unusual move of requesting a jury to hear the forfeiture case, lawyer Robert Trout said without elaboration, "We believe in the jury system."  The case took less than the whole morning session Thursday to hear.  The jury reached its decision, which is a recommendation that does not bind Judge Ellis, before the end of the afternoon.

Jefferson, 62, faces up to 150 years in prison, though federal sentencing guidelines will undoubtedly call for a far shorter sentence.  Prosecutors have said the guidelines could suggest a prison term of more than 20 years.

August 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Jefferson (advisory) jury calls for big forfeiture :


Jefferson packed a whole jury with criminal cultist lawyers. The machinations of the junior justice league were thrown into reverse in swift order, channeling indoctriated criminal lovers in KKK robes into encroachment of the last vestige of common sense. Is it just to save time by putting lawyers straight into the box instead of just letting them control the whole game to warp reality for the poor shmucks fooled into playing this rigged game? In a rent seeking enterprise, any efficiency gains are pure monopoly profit. At least the other criminal gangs are competetive. Time will tell how the urge to snuggle with political terrorist robber barons will stack up against the urge to hang the defenseless. Jefferson decided to get caught to elevate his status in the commie health care quota regime, he is the real winner here and shrewder than all you lawyer idiots.

Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Aug 7, 2009 10:26:14 AM

Nice try, but you're not actually as funny as SC.

Posted by: Gray Proctor | Aug 7, 2009 10:51:29 AM

Redundancy Clause, there is no point in parodying Supremacy Claus because SC already IS a parody. I am surprised that more folks haven't caught on -- SC is a construct, a satire, an impressive piece of performance art akin to Borat and Bruno. I don't know who is behind it, but it's probably some brilliant but bored college student, or liberal law clerk, or rich retired plaintiff's lawyer. The rantings of SC are too contradictory, too scattershot, too off-the-cuff, and too comically extreme to be believed by someone of SC's obvious intelligence (and grammatical skill, for that matter). Moreover, SC has a sense of humor, which is a dead giveaway that he's not some nutcase in a basement. Don't let yourself be punk'd; just sit back and enjoy the impressive performance.

Posted by: in on the joke | Aug 7, 2009 12:51:14 PM

Your friendly, loving remark is much appreciated. I am very offended by how unfair and misleading it is. However, I am not reporting you.

Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Aug 7, 2009 1:23:47 PM

in on the joke:

While I do not deny that SC "IS a parody," I do not believe he is intentionally parodying his position. While I don't claim to have personal knowledge, my belief is based on previous googling and blog comments.

Assuming that SL&P's Supremacy Claus is the same one that pops up on most of the blawg's, I would direct you to the following comment:


[see the next comment too, which links to a post citing additional evidence as to identity]

Posted by: Texas Lawyer | Aug 7, 2009 1:43:45 PM

Interesting, Texas Lawyer; thanks for that info. It was my second guess: such a great hatred of lawyers must come from the failure to become one. "Lawyers are evil, immoral, rent-seeking criminal cult members -- which is why they won't let me into the cult."

Posted by: in on the joke | Aug 7, 2009 2:05:26 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