Judge’s rationale on sentencing some felt was too light
Many people in New York City and even around the country often follow high-profile legal and criminal cases. Depending on what sources they track, their perspectives on the outcome of a particular case may vary. In the case of the man who was the chair of the President’s 2016 campaign, it may well have seemed that a large majority of people believed he deserved or would receive a very long time in prison for his alleged crimes.
According to CNN, the defendant was accused of tax and bank fraud and of hiding foreign assets. The prosecution team had lobbied for a prison sentence to last as long as 25 years. On the other side of the spectrum, the defense team put forth a variety of examples of other cases that they insisted were similar to that of their client’s. In those cases, some defendants were sentenced to home detention, probation only or prison time lasting a matter of months.
At the end of the day, the former campaign chairman to the President was sentenced to just under four years in prison. This sentence seemed to surprise many people but the judge was very clear in his reasons for making this choice.
This case was one where there were no mandatory or minimum sentences and the judge could use his discretion. The judge in the case is reported as saying he believes the recommended guidelines for the charges faced in this matter are too high. His ultimate sentence in this case appears to be in line with that train of thought.