For sentencing, almost anything can be presented to the court to enhance/decrease (aggravating/mitigating circumstances, in legal jargon) the sentence, regardle

For sentencing, almost anything can be presented to the court to enhance/decrease (aggravating/mitigating circumstances, in legal jargon) the sentence, regardless of if the thing presented has been proven or would even be admissible during a trial. The rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing/disposition - the court often considers things like remorse of the convict, the convict’s history, and can also consider other allegations made against the convict even if those allegations have not been proved in court. An example of this is when the dozens and dozens of victims of Larry Nassar spoke at his sentencing, even though he was not actually convicted of abusing them all. Judges have broad discretion in what they consider at sentencing. And, unfortunately for Ulbrecht, the crimes he was convicted of carried high maximum sentences. I think the minimum he was facing was 20 years. The whole thing is ridiculous. Edit, for clarity: the ridiculous sentencing of Ulbrecht is ridiculous, not a judge allowing so many of Nassar’s victims to speak at his sentencing. When I re-read my comment I realized it could be construed that way...