Re: Legal complications following Bush's commutation

This, IMHO, is a very simple issue.  Supervised Release, by statute, follows a term of imprisonment.  Probation is only applicable when the sentence does not include imprisonment.   Libby, contrary to various media reports, never got (and doesn't now have) Probation.   Libby was originally summonsed into Court (not arrested), but was still booked by the Marshals - probably immediately after entering his plea of not guilty.  This is when (contrary to media reports) he was assigned his "prison number." Libby, just like virtually every other defendant, receives one day of jail credit for that booking.  Accordingly, since Bush commuted the sentence (of imprisonment) and stated that it would expire immediately, the statute is served - his Supervised Release follows the expiration of his sentence - one day (after commutation). Consequently, this should be a no-brainer for Judge Walton - and all the sentencing pundits who have raised this issue.  Technically, Libby must report to Probation within 72 hours of his "release" from incarceration - because of the commutation, that would mean by COB Thursday.  His Supervised Release started today - July 3, 2007. 

by Howard O. Kieffer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 12:10:18 AM
 

It would be best to read Walton's sentencing order

Would you happen to have seen it?  Have a link to it?

 I agree that the press has probably mis-used the word "probation."  It's a term of art, for sure.  Even in state courts, probation is something that happens in lieu of a prison term. 

I would guess (and admit it's that) that what's being called probation was actually what you describe it as, to-wit supervised release imposed incident to the Sentencing Guidelines.

I would, however, also surmise that the payment of the fine is a condition thereof, which opens another kettle of fish.

 Walton, being a federal district judge, does, in fact, still retain some godlike powers.  I'd like to see him use them.

Thanks for your thoughts!

by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 43 comments) on Wednesday, July 4, 2007 at 12:25:47 AM
 

Keiffer's comment that this is a simple issue

Maybe this is a simple issue.  The court record is clear that Libby was sentenced to supervised release, not probation.  But the issue is not simple enough for our President.  Mr. Bush, in his July 2 statement announcing the commutation, said Libby had been "sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine" and that, after his commutation, Libby "will remain on probation".  (Presumably the "media reports" referring to probation were merely reporting what Bush said.)  Furthermore, the issue may be a "no-brainer" for the sentencing Judge (Judge Walton of the U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia, appointed by George W. Bush), but he is taking no chances.  He has ordered the parties to brief him on the legal limbo Bush has created by commuting the underlying basis for Libby's supervised release.  In his Order, Judge Walton says that the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration". (Judge Walton's July 3 order is available through the Pacer service as document 383 for case 1:05cr00394.)  Hopefully, Bush's attempt to shield himself from Libby's ratting out the administration (to avoid prison) while leaving Libby in jeopardy (so he can plead the Fifth if called to testify) will keep the fireworks going on this issue long after July 4 has passed.     

by Albert (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, July 5, 2007 at 6:47:53 AM