I've got to give credit where credit is due. The criminal justice system is fairer and works better when defendants are not penalized for going to trial. It may result in more jury trials, but the risk is greatly reduced that innocent persons will feel pressured to plead guilty to avoid extreme post-trial sentences.
Denny Walsh's story in the Sacramento Bee demonstrates that Judge Mendez does not believe in any penalty for a defendant who exercises his or her Sixth Amendment right to go to trial:
The former owner of a Lincoln company that repairs airplane parts was sentenced Tuesday in Sacramento federal court to 2 1/2 years in prison for returning parts to customers that had not been properly fixed.
After a three-week trial, a jury found William Hugh Weygandt guilty of conspiring to pass the parts off as ready for use in accord with Federal Aviation Administration standards.
* * *
Weygandt, a 64-year-old Granite Bay resident, had no prior criminal record. His lawyers argued vociferously for probation only, maintaining he was not part of a conspiracy.
The government fought hard for a longer term of imprisonment.
U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez also rejected the government’s request for a $250,000 fine. The judge set a Sept. 16 hearing on the issue of restitution.
Mendez ticked off a number of factors that he said were positives for Weygandt.
“Your history and character weigh in your favor,” the judge told Weygandt. “You have had steady employment and are a devoted family man. You have performed a number of charitable acts. You have already suffered by virtue of the damage to your reputation and finances.”
He also said Weygandt is not a danger to society and will not reoffend.
On the other hand, Mendez said, Weygandt must do some time behind bars.
“The jury verdict, conviction and evidence demonstrated that he was the leader of a company engaged in a criminal fraud conspiracy over a number of years,” the judge said. “This was, remains, and will always be a serious offense.”
Mendez set the sentencing range under federal guidelines at 57 to 71 months, but then went more than two years below the range for the term.
Mendez said one of his goals was to avoid disparate punishment among Weygandt and three co-defendants. But those three pleaded guilty, cooperated in the prosecution of Weygandt and are awaiting sentencing.
Prosecutors Kyle Reardon and Michele Beckwith at first wanted 20 years for Weygandt. But they scaled back to 15, as that was the statutory maximum. They then reluctantly dropped to 10 after defense lawyers contended that is the maximum.
When Mendez set a range of 57 to 71 months at Tuesday’s hearing, he asked Reardon for yet another recommendation. The prosecutor requested 83 months, saying he would at least like to get a year beyond the guideline range.
“The court needs to send a message,” Reardon said. “This case has been closely watched by the (aircraft) industry. (Weygandt) had the sole authority to fix the problem. He wanted to squeeze a few more pennies into his $600,000 salary.”
* * *
Weygandt lawyer Craig Denney insisted prosecutors wanted a lengthy prison term simply because his client chose to go to trial rather than plead guilty as his co-defendants did.
Reardon’s argument “is disguised as a deterrence argument, but it is a trial-penalty argument,” Denney said.