Emotional Healing During Criminal Sentencing Hearing
How should the sentence be impacted, if at all, where a victim does not want the defendant to be unduly punished and/or prosecuted, but is obviously powerless to stop the government, and subsequently the judge, from imposing a just result? Should the victim's goals or desires be more than just one small piece of the equation in sentencing?
December 23, 2021 at 11:45 AM
7 minute read
Criminal LawIn a recent case in New York federal court, the victim of a multi-million-dollar fraud perpetrated by his long-time and trusted chief financial officer delivered an eloquent and impassioned victim-impact statement to the court. In his own words, the victim spoke first of the harm done to his company due to the embezzlement, then to his wish for the defendant to learn from his mistakes and make a better life for himself. As is standard in criminal cases across the nation, the impact statement gave the victim an opportunity to heard, and in this specific instance, to voice the pain and struggles he and his company faced due to the defendant's fraud. It also allowed him to express his deep compassion for the defendant—a once trusted employee and family friend. His tone and words conveyed hurt, some understandable anger, but also, and perhaps most unexpected, forgiveness. The victim's statement was not only moving, but also showed his nature as a man of deep faith and heartfelt humanity towards others, including those who did him harm. "Financial crime may also affect victims emotionally and spiritually. Some victims report that they have lost trust in others or in their own ability to make judgments." Deem, D. et al., Victims of Financial Crime, in R.C. Davis, et al. (eds.) Victims ofCrime (2007), p. 133.
The defendant in this case also made his allocution in an emotional manner. "[T]he right of a defendant in a criminal case to speak at her or his sentencing hearing before the sentence is pronounced—has been recognized in English common law since 1689 and has been enshrined in some form in the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure since 1944." Burger-Caplan, J.I., Time of Desperation: An Examination of Criminal Defendants' Experiences of Allocuting at Sentencing, Columbia J. of Law and Social Problems, 51:1 (2017), p. 40. The purpose of allocution is to give the defendant a similar opportunity to be heard, to tell their story from their own perspective, and in many cases, allow the defendant to seem more fully human despite their wrongdoing. The defendant's allocution appeared to provoke the spontaneous act of the victim to extend a hand of sympathy to him, which ultimately did affect the sentence imposed.
The essence of the victim's statement echoed in the hallowed courtroom and served to paint the aura of the otherwise cold scene with a sense of warmth. While the judge was in another room making her determination as to an order of restitution and sentencing, the victim approached the defendant, and they embraced. This led to the families of the victim and the defendant to likewise approach each other and offer a hand of renewed friendship and compassion. Where the norm would be for both sides to avoid even simple eye-contact, this case was entirely different. Seasoned attorneys, witnesses and court employees became witnesses to this unexpected scene of sincere emotional healing as it unfolded. The judge returned a short time later and continued with sentencing, which included the order of restitution and a prison sentence, followed by probation.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
New York City Settles Wrongful Conviction Suit for $9.45 Million
US Judge Told Archegos Founder Can't Afford What Defense Says Is 'Unjustified' $10 Billion Restitution
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250