COMMONWEALTH vs GEORGE HOPKINS 10-23-19

[JimF-LowBari]

17 hours ago, garfield said:

Hopefully one at which they taught their students to not end a sentence that way.

😀

Had a college IT prof nail me for my grammar one time in front of the class. Did ye olde “a proposition is something you do not end a sentence with”. I replied in a PA Dutchified accent “you ain’t never been in my part of the state then”. The three other students from my part of the state (who got it) broke up laughing. You could tell by the profs face he didn’t understand but wasn’t going to lower himself to ask. 

 explanation: Sometimes people in PA German/PA Dutch areas follow English grammar rules and sometimes German grammar rules. And sometimes things get befuddled (mixed up/confused).

 

Excuse me: befuddled nah (now)...

Edited August 21, 2020 by JimF-LowBari

[N.E. Brigand]

5 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

As far as I know, this is a state, not a federal trial.

I've testified as an expert witness in a number of drug cases in New Jersey.

In my experience, when a defendant takes a plea, it includes agreeing to a specified prison term.

Again, in my experience, I haven't seen a Judge not accept the prison term, if both the prosecutor and defendant agree to it.

Thanks. I did know this was a state trial, so I appreciate you explaining your understanding of how it works at that level (at least in New Jersey--if someone has knowledge specific to Pennsylvania, please chime in).

That does contrast with federal trials, from what I've seen over the past few years: except where there is some mandatory minimum--which, I gather, judges hate--only judges decide on the sentence. The prosecutors and defendant don't actually agree to a sentence in the plea agreement. Instead, they agree on the offense, and they note what sentence is called for in the guidelines for that offense, but they always add an acknowledgement that it's up to the judge (and also that the probation office gets to weigh in with an opinion). For instance, earlier this week I was reading a plea agreement that was just entered. It was a case where a lawyer pleaded guilty to altering an official document. (The details are almost comical: he was sent an email concerning an official matter, but he didn't think the email was clear enough, so before he forwarded it to someone else, he added three words to it without indicating that those were his additions and not from the original email. Those words didn't change the underlying facts, but the change was "material" because the person he forwarded it to acted on the assurance that the original sender didn't just agree about the issue at question but had used those specific words. The guilty lawyer even told the judge in his oral allocution this week that he believed the words he added were true, but that doesn't change the fact that he altered the document, which he admitted in court he did. Key lesson: lawyers shouldn't cut corners!) The deal the lawyer made with the government makes it very clear that they are only agreeing (mostly) on what the guidelines say and have no power to reach a deal on the sentence itself. Here's a taste of how such agreements are written (bolded as in the original; ellipses mine; also I think the "C." should be a "D.", but I didn't change it):

--------------------

Your client understands that the sentence in this case will be determined by the Court, pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including a consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), and to assist the Court in determining the appropriate sentence, the parties agree to the following: A. Estimated Offense Level Under the Guidelines [...] The parties agree that the following Sentencing Guidelines sections apply: U.S.S.G. §2B1.1(a)(2) Base Offense Level 6 [...] The parties disagree on the whether the following enhancement applies: U.S.S.G. §3B1.3Abuse of Position of Trust +2 [...] Total 8 [...] The Government reserves the rights to argue for the application of the 2-level enhancement at sentencing and the defendant reserves his right to object to the application of the enhancement. [...] In accordance with the above, the Government believes the Estimated Offense Level will be at least 6, and the defendant believes the Estimated Offense Level will be at least 8. [...] C. Estimated Guidelines Range [...] Based upon the above, your client’s estimated Sentencing Guidelines range is zero months to six months [...] In addition, the parties agree that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2, should the Court impose a fine, at Guidelines level 6, the estimated applicable fine range is $1,000 to $9,500, and at Guidelines level 4, the estimated applicable fine range is $500 to $9,500 [...] Your client reserves the right to ask the Court not to impose any applicable fine.The parties agree that, solely for the purposes of calculating the applicable range under the Sentencing Guidelines, neither a downward nor upward departure from the Estimated Guidelines Range set forth above is warranted. [...] Your client understands and acknowledges that the Estimated Guidelines Range calculated above is not binding on the Probation Office or the Court. [...]

--------------------

That selection I've made above only includes about 20% of the total "Sentencing Guidelines Analysis" section of the agreement. They make it complicated! And even if the procedure in state court is different, I'll bet it will be equally long-winded if we ever see a Hopkins deal.

And to the other point I made: the law actually says that the maximum punishment for that particular crime is five years' imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. Notice that prosecutors have agreed that the guidelines would only call for six months and $9,500 at the most. And the judge might impose something less (well not less than zero time served, but less than $1,000) or more. So, based on what you describe observing in a state court, quite different.

Edited August 21, 2020 by N.E. Brigand

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Had a college IT prof nail me for my grammar one time in front of the class. Did ye olde “a proposition is something you do not end a sentence with”. I replied in a PA Dutchified accent “you ain’t never been in my part of the state then”. The three other students from my part of the state (who got it) broke up laughing. You could tell by the profs face he didn’t understand but wasn’t going to lower himself to ask. 

 explanation: Sometimes people in PA German/PA Dutch areas follow English grammar rules and sometimes German grammar rules. And sometimes things get befuddled (mixed up/confused).

Excuse me: befuddled nah (now)...

Reminds me of the "rule" about not splitting infinitives, i.e., not to do what Star Trek did. According to this "rule," instead of saying "To boldly go where no man has gone before," Kirk should have said "To go boldly where no man has gone before". But the reason that "rule" exists appears to be that there were some 19th Century grammarians who thought English was inferior to Latin and should be more like Latin. And in Latin the infinitive case is just one word, without any equivalent to our "to," and thus can't be split up.

Modern grammarians have largely dropped the prohibition.

[hostrauser]

12 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

Jury Questionnaire:  

Have you ever participated in any drum corps social media platforms including but not limited to the "Drum Corps Planet" Forum, "Facebook", "Twitter", "Instagram", etc?

Do you have any preconceived feelings or prejudice toward the defendant George J. Hopkins? 

What are your opinions on hash-marks?

[N.E. Brigand]

I'm not on Facebook, so I only know Hopkins's post-Cadets self-aggrandizing comments there from the occasional description here, but I thought of them today when reading about the CEO of a large non-profit organization who has resigned following a sexual misconduct scandal (and after the organization's board of directors made it clear last night that he needed to step down). The man told a reporter today, "It’s a relief. The quote that keeps going through my mind this morning is Martin Luther Ling Jr: ‘free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I’m free at last." He added that he was moving on: "I see a role in other areas, I don’t know what it is yet but I’m not done. This happened for a reason."

It seems to be a pattern for people in such situations to see themselves as victims.

[N.E. Brigand]

2 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

I'm not on Facebook, so I only know Hopkins's post-Cadets self-aggrandizing comments there from the occasional description here, but I thought of them today when reading about the CEO of a large non-profit organization who has resigned following a sexual misconduct scandal (and after the organization's board of directors made it clear last night that he needed to step down). The man told a reporter today, "It’s a relief. The quote that keeps going through my mind this morning is Martin Luther Ling Jr: ‘free at last, free at last, thank God almighty I’m free at last." He added that he was moving on: "I see a role in other areas, I don’t know what it is yet but I’m not done. This happened for a reason."

It seems to be a pattern for people in such situations to see themselves as victims.

There is another curious parallel between the two cases,* which again maybe just serves to show how all such situations are grounded in the same basic patterns.

There have been rumors swirling about that CEO engaging in sexual shenanigans for some time (at least since late 2018). The particular non-profit he helmed is large enough that such rumors could get the attention of the national media, who did some investigating. One news article about the allegations was published late last summer. And that led to the organization tweeting out a response eleven months ago.

But it was a curious response in that it wasn't a statement from the organization but instead was a quote from a journalist at a smaller outlet that specializes on reporting in the non-profit's field, in which he is well respected. This was the organization's tweet (I redact the specific names to keep the discussion on track): "'Sorry, but [the outlet's] long expose on [the CEO] lacks adequate named sources to be taken seriously. I'm not [CEO] fan myself [but] the writer relies almost entirely on anonymous sources. - [journalist's name]" And the organization only deleted that particular tweet today.

*I used the word "cases," but I should probably emphasize that at this time, there is no criminal case in this situation. The behavior by the CEO is outre enough that its exposure practically demanded he resign because of the nature of the organization he led and the appearance of hypocrisy, and in particular because he apparently lied about it to the his board of directors (although they also seem to have engaged in some willful blindness), but in itself is not criminal (at many organizations, it wouldn't even be a violation of company policy). There are, however, some intimations of ancillary crimes: the CEO himself now claims he was being blackmailed because of the behavior -- the specific nature of which he still disputes -- and there are questions to be asked about whether or not he ever succumbed to such extortion attempts by providing something of value, possibly including contracts awarded by his organization or official statements of support, in exchange for secrecy. (If you're going to behave indiscreetly, you need to be prepared to follow David Letterman's lead should evidence of those indiscretions fall into others' hands.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - -

So obviously the first thing that occurred to me was the response of YEA's board of directors when a group of alumni approached them late in 2017 with their concerns. I think it's now widely agreed in the drum corps community that the board didn't exercise their responsibility of due diligence, and that's why they too resigned soon after the news broke in the Philadelphia Inquirer. On the one hand, they were presented with anonymous claims of potentially criminal behavior and needed to be held to a higher standard; they also received the claims in private and thus had the opportunity to do the right thing without public/media pressure. On the other hand, they were presented with very limited information and perhaps lacked the tools to deal with it (i.e., their actions were incompetent not malicious). And I think this other organization's actions over the past year show that it could have been handled even worse. It's not a perfect analogy, but the equivalent in drum corps might be as if Cadets, upon reading Tricia Nadolny's first story in spring 2018, had issued a statement quoting Kevin Gamin, respected drum corps reporter, saying he had doubts about Nadolny's work.

[cmhs59]

You don't name names.  Is that because you're not at liberty to do so.

[N.E. Brigand]

7 minutes ago, cmhs59 said:

You don't name names.  Is that because you're not at liberty to do so.

Also I did name one name:

[IllianaLancerContra]

5 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Also I did name one name:

 Not Santa!?! Say it isn’t so!

[Ghost]

4 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

 Not Santa!?! Say it isn’t so!

DL?