Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Equal Justice Should Apply to All, Including the President's Friends
In the past year, we have seen the Department of Justice (DOJ), under the direction of now-former Attorney General William Barr, present arguments in several cases that implicate the conduct of either President Donald Trump or his close advisors. In this article, we consider certain positions taken by DOJ in cases involving Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and the subpoenas duces tecum issued by the New York District Attorney's Office in connection with its investigation into the Trump Organization. In each instance, DOJ has taken positions that diverge from the positions usually taken by DOJ prosecutors in ordinary criminal prosecutions.
This has led to understandable criticism: Why should DOJ treat President Trump or his advisors differently than other defendants are treated? Equal justice under law is the highest value of our legal system, and no one should receive preferential treatment because they are friends with the President. This is why bar associations and former prosecutors have spoken out against these steps. Rather than insist that the President's associates be treated more harshly, we offer this modest proposal: Remedy the unequal treatment by affording to all criminal defendants the same consideration accorded to Stone, Flynn and the Trump Organization. Defense lawyers should cite to DOJ's positions in these three cases and ask courts to give ordinary defendants the same treatment.
'United States v. Roger Stone'
Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative and a friend and advisor of President Trump, was convicted of crimes relating to the obstruction of the Mueller investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. Before Stone's sentencing, on Feb. 10, 2020, the government initially proposed that Stone receive a sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to his offense, which was 87 to 108 months' imprisonment. This is consistent with the position that the government ordinarily takes at sentencing, where it typically advises the court that a within-the-range sentence is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Shortly after the government filed its brief seeking a Guidelines sentence, President Trump tweeted on Feb. 11, 2020, that the sentencing recommendation was "horrible," "very unfair," and a "miscarriage of justice." Later that day, on February 11, the government filed a "Supplemental and Amended Sentencing Memorandum" in which it took the exact opposite position: that a within-the-range sentence "would not be appropriate or serve the interests of justice in this case." United States v. Stone, No. 19-cr-00018, Dkt. No. 286 (D.D.C. Feb. 11, 2020).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.