It would have been less expensive, less embarrassing and...
probably lesser sentences to plead guilty in the first place.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/21/us/lori-loughlin-guilty/index.html
No, the original push from the prosecution was for 18 months because they were trying for more than just a conspiracy charge. Her lawyers played a very good game to get the sentences down to this level. It also means she will likely do only about 3 weeks of prison time... Remember Huffman's crime involved 15,000... Loughlin's involved 500,000... Frankly it shows that Huffman got screwed by accepting the guilty plea so soon. She should have held out as this indicates the prosecutors would have likely gone for a probation only on her if she had held firm longer.
shareI disagree, but we can still do that in the USA. If she had done like Huffman, Lori and hubby would be a sentenced a few weeks and served a few days. The push from the Feds was because they fought charges.
shareI think you are forgetting what the prosecutor was saying to begin with. He was quoted several time stating the they needed a sentence longer than a year. Given the money involved it was extremely doubtful he would have caved down to mere weeks at the start.
I worked in a law firm that only took white collar crime cases and their stinging it out as long as they did was destined to get a better deal if the prosecutor was ever going to offer any. The only other possibility they could have faced was a prosecutor that had tagged them for no deal, which can happen when a prosecutor just wants a lot of publicity in a high profile case. I only saw that happen one time in a big savings and loan fraud case and the more media attention it got the less willing they were to deal as the first deals were pretty much no deals beyond plead guilty to all charges. In this case with Lori they had a list of charges and now it is down to only one.
I see your point
share