Judge grants motion to reopen sentencing in case of Paul Pelosi attacker

[question everything]

Source: CNN/Yahoo

A federal judge has granted a motion to reopen the sentencing in the case against David DePape, the man convicted of the 2022 attack on House Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul, because he did not get a chance to speak during his sentencing hearing Friday.

The judge will reopen the sentencing portion of the case on May 28 at 9:30 a.m.

In a motion filed Saturday, the court admitted to the mistake, stating that federal rules require the “court, prior to imposing a sentence, to ‘address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to mitigate the sentence.’ At the May 17, 2024 sentencing proceeding, no party brought to the Court’s attention that it had not done so. Nonetheless, it was the Court’s responsibility to personally ask Mr. DePape if he wanted to speak. As the Court did not do so, it committed clear error.”


Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-grants-motion-reopen-sentencing-233402782.html

[underpants]

1. Who is supporting this nut?

Okay. He gets to say something. I can’t imagine that’s going to help.

[AZLD4Candidate]

2. I'm sorry for what I did in some insincere wording. Any bets?

[usonian]

3. They're just begging him to get the max.

I’m not a betting person but I’ll “wager” that he opts for the DuFresne expressway.

[msongs]

4. mistrial

[Aussie105]

5. When he gets to speak he has several options:

1. Repeat his insane internal dialog that led him to his actions.

2. Show sincere regret.

3. Say that he was in a frame of mind at the time that he doesn't comprehend now, and could he please have some psych help while serving his sentence?

[TomSlick]

6. The correct decision.

The judge needs to follow the procedure.

[eggplant]

7. This.

It doesn't matter if the outcome would change. Procedure is procedure.

[MichMan]

8. After they let him speak, they should give him an even longer sentence than the first time

For wasting their time

[onenote]

9. How did he waste their time.

I guess you're not a fan of due process and giving defendants and opportunity to speak at their sentencing.

[MichMan]

10. When there is no downside to appealing, it clogs up the court system

When the only outcome is a potentially reduced sentence, it encourages people to appeal endlessly.

[onenote]

12. The judge admitted he made an error. Appeals are always appropriate to correct legal error.

So now I take it you're a fan of double jeopardy, where someone appealing should be subject to a harsher penalty.

[MichMan]

13. It's a do over of the original sentencing.

It's not double jeopardy. There are 3 possible scenarios regardless of who appeals.

1) Sentence is reduced

2) Sentence stays the same

3) Sentence is increased

He is hoping to get his sentence reduced by making his statement. What if he has the opposite effect, and makes himself look worse? Do you believe that #3 should be automatically taken away from the Judge?

There are multiple examples of civil cases where a judgement is appealed. Owen Diaz won a $137 million judgement for discrimination against Tesla. Tesla appealed and it was reduced to $15 million. Diaz appealed the lower amount as insufficient, but instead of giving him more, the court then awarded him $3.2 million instead of the $15 million. His appeal cost him $11.8 million. He ultimately settled.

[Rebl2]

11. He's still guilty

I don’t want to hear his excuses or apology, which I am sure he is not sorry for what he did.