Judges do not like being played around with by attorneys.
I note this in light of Attorney General William Barr’s newly asserted control over the Justice Department’s new sentencing recommendation for Roger Stone. The Justice Department originally filed a recommendation for a sentence of seven to nine years. But under Barr’s direction, a second filing has now recommended an undetermined lesser sentence.
Still, the key here is that while Barr’s action might have won President Trump’s applause, it has led the original Stone prosecutors to request reassignment. That political backdrop may end up backfiring spectacularly for Stone.
Because, as I say, judges do not like being played around with by attorneys.
And that’s exactly what’s happened here. With two starkly divergent sentencing recommendations now submitted, Judge Amy Berman Jackson has reason to be angry. At best, the Justice Department appears conflicted and chaotic, wasting her court’s time. At worst, it appears directly suborned to political interests. Something antithetical to any federal judge versed in the Constitution. The greatest risk for Stone is that Judge Jackson will now see this case as a test of the judiciary’s independence from the political establishment. A concern made likelier by Trump’s Twitter insults against her.
There is hope for Stone. Jackson may simply defer to the Justice Department’s new sentencing recommendation. And considering her experience with politically sensitive cases, Jackson will try to zone out from the partisan melee here.
Nevertheless, very few federal judges would appreciate the credible inference that the head of the executive branch is interfering with their cases. Via Trump’s tweets and Barr’s influence, that is the case here.
In turn, knowing that the president is determined to see Stone receive a lesser sentence, Jackson is likely to sentence Stone in strict conformity with sentencing precedence for his crimes. And that probably means more prison time, not less.
