United States V Gementera
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View United States V Gementera as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 435
- Pages: 4
United States v. Gementera
08/30/2009
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
Procedural Posture: Defendant convicted and sentenced at circuit court level. Appealed to appellate court.
Year: 2004 Disposition: Affirmed.
Issue: Whether wearing a sandwich board stating, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.” is reasonably related to the objective of rehabilitation , protection of the public, and deterrence, under the Sentencing Reform Act.
Facts: Gementera was spotted stealing mail in San Francisco in 2001. He was immediately detained by the police. He pled guilty to mail theft in the circuit court. He was sentenced to two months of incarceration and three months of supervised release, to which the court affixed several stipulations. The first was writing apologies to the identified victims of his crime; second, he was to lecture at high schools; and third, and the facet over which Gementera appealed, was that he must spend one 8-hour day outside a post office wearing the aforementioned sandwich board.
Holding: The court held that the circuit court’s sentencing was, in fact, within reasonable relation to rehabilitation and in accordance with the Sentencing Reform Act and upheld the sentence.
Reasoning: The court investigating both of Gementera’s claims against the sentence. The first of these was that it violated the SRA. The court found that the Act requires the sentence to adhere to three purposes: deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. Similarly, it must be reasonably related and not further deprivation of liberty. They found that though Gementera claimed the court only wished to humiliate him, the record shows to the contrary. Furthermore, the court suggests that humiliation is inherent in any sentence or guilty verdict. Gementera also contended that “shaming” is not reasonably related to rehabilitation. The court found he was unable to persuade that them the condition was unreasonable (and suggesting it was not enough to overrule). The found that his particular sentence would do Gementera more good than a longer sentence in prison.
Law: This decision provides little precedent other than to demonstrate how to test sentences against the SRA. It does, however, demonstrate a quasiacceptance of “shaming” of sorts, which could be useful in other appellate cases where a defendant feels his or her sentence is meant only for humiliation (in that sense, though, the precedent would be detrimental and the client would have to prove that the facts of his/ her case were distinguishable from the facts of this one).
08/30/2009
The appellate court is looking at the trial court. •
What becomes so important is the wording of the trial judge. ○ Did he call it humiliation?
08/30/2009
Court: US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit •
Procedural Posture: Defendant convicted and sentenced at circuit court level. Appealed to appellate court.
Year: 2004 Disposition: Affirmed.
Issue: Whether wearing a sandwich board stating, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.” is reasonably related to the objective of rehabilitation , protection of the public, and deterrence, under the Sentencing Reform Act.
Facts: Gementera was spotted stealing mail in San Francisco in 2001. He was immediately detained by the police. He pled guilty to mail theft in the circuit court. He was sentenced to two months of incarceration and three months of supervised release, to which the court affixed several stipulations. The first was writing apologies to the identified victims of his crime; second, he was to lecture at high schools; and third, and the facet over which Gementera appealed, was that he must spend one 8-hour day outside a post office wearing the aforementioned sandwich board.
Holding: The court held that the circuit court’s sentencing was, in fact, within reasonable relation to rehabilitation and in accordance with the Sentencing Reform Act and upheld the sentence.
Reasoning: The court investigating both of Gementera’s claims against the sentence. The first of these was that it violated the SRA. The court found that the Act requires the sentence to adhere to three purposes: deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. Similarly, it must be reasonably related and not further deprivation of liberty. They found that though Gementera claimed the court only wished to humiliate him, the record shows to the contrary. Furthermore, the court suggests that humiliation is inherent in any sentence or guilty verdict. Gementera also contended that “shaming” is not reasonably related to rehabilitation. The court found he was unable to persuade that them the condition was unreasonable (and suggesting it was not enough to overrule). The found that his particular sentence would do Gementera more good than a longer sentence in prison.
Law: This decision provides little precedent other than to demonstrate how to test sentences against the SRA. It does, however, demonstrate a quasiacceptance of “shaming” of sorts, which could be useful in other appellate cases where a defendant feels his or her sentence is meant only for humiliation (in that sense, though, the precedent would be detrimental and the client would have to prove that the facts of his/ her case were distinguishable from the facts of this one).
08/30/2009
The appellate court is looking at the trial court. •
What becomes so important is the wording of the trial judge. ○ Did he call it humiliation?
Related Documents
United States V Gementera
June 2020 15
Weeks V. United States
June 2020 15
United States V
November 2019 22
Weeks V. United States
June 2020 10
United States V. Miller, 30..
July 2020 5