Because It Would Be Admitting Guilt?

Because It Would Be Admitting Guilt?

As we sat back off in the Syracuse Federal Court, I researched the judge assigned to the full case. He is at his early 60’s perhaps, regular features, a full head of graying hair, quite fit looking. His expression as he stared down from his high desk at Martha and Mr. Mott made me very glad that I had not been on trial in his court. To say that his countenance was stern will be a vast understatement.

I can’t envision what it was like for Martha, with her double-digit record of felonies, to meet that gaze. I have a good creativity, but I couldn’t think about this man smiling and using grandchildren. After the formalities of saying the indictment and the plea were taken care of, Martha’s attorney, Richard Mott, asked, and rose the judge to declare a hearing before transferring sentencing. Mr. Mott admitted that the facts continued to be unchanged, but he said that the various views should be heard. The judge said and disagreed so. Mr. Mott dropped silent.

Paul and I glanced sideways at each other, thinking “YES! ” because this was about something we’d been worried. We were pleased it was seen by the judge our way. Next the judge asked if anyone was there who wished to speak before sentencing was passed. I’d been coached by Paul and understood that this meant were some of Martha’s victims present. The Assistant US Attorney stood up and said that the Victim-Witness Coordinator had brought claims that victims wanted to be read prior to the sentencing was passed.

The judge asked whether these documents were the same ones he previously read, and the Assistant US Attorney said that the judge, Mr. Mott, and the consultant from the Bureau of Prisons acquired all received copies of them. Mr. Mott objected to the claims being read. The judge responded that he previously browse the statements prior to the hearing curtly and saw no reason behind them to again be read. He did, however, order them to become an area of the official record.

  • Or click Done if you want to return to the Preview Mode’s Social tab
  • Do a detailed, structured phone screen
  • Press the house button, if necessary
  • Possesses a creative and flexible brain
  • Removing unnecessary and irrelevant information over time

I wrote one such statement myself, and I was tickled, because it would be considered an area of the established record now. I glanced surreptitiously at the clock hanging close to the door of the courtroom. It was edging on towards 4:30. The judge looked straight at Martha and asked her whether she wanted to say anything before he pronounced phrase.

Martha and her lawyer stood up, and she started to speak. Martha began by saying that she really cared about “my writers” and needed only the best for them. She said she wished to make restitution to them, and to help them. She went on in this vein, speaking about how much she cared about “my authors,” for perhaps three or four minutes, kind of rambling about how she’d intended to harm anyone, and wanted the best for them.

Surprisingly, she didn’t apologize or say, “I’m sorry” in any way. Maybe her attorney had told her not to? Since it would be admitting guilt? Coming from the woman who had gotten a lot of victims because she claimed to be “Christian” and to be looking for writers of “Christian and religious books” this proceeded to go right over the top, so far as I’m concerned.

The judge probably didn’t know about this, however the irony certainly wasn’t lost on Paul and me. We carefully did NOT look at each other during Martha’s little speech. After she stopped speaking, there was a pause. Both Martha and Mott continued to be the positioned as the judge fixed Martha with this look that would have reduced me to quivering jelly. Then your judge started in, and it was simple from his first words to Martha that he wasn’t buying it. She was mentioned by him double-digit rap sheet and said he was certain that Martha did know from incorrect indeed, and committed fraud against her victims knowingly quite.

He used words like “manipulated” and “machination” to spell it out, how she had treated her victims. Finally, the judge coldly ended up telling her that, mindful of her “shenanigans” he hereby sentenced her to 65 months in Federal Prison, plus 3 years’ probation. On January 9th 2007 He ordered her to record for incarceration. The judge also ordered her to make restitution to her victims in the amount of 10% of her income, per month or 100 dollars, whichever sum was greater.