6 ms·

Yes there's lots of very high and very low guesses as to what she might get going around. I'm just commenting here specifically on this twitter guy's opinion.

tptacek 5y ago
I missed some guidelines stuff; there's a separate section for role in the offense, and another for obstruction. The tally I get: 7 (Base offense) +24 ($140MM in damages) +2 (10+ victims) +2 (Sophisticated means) +4 (Leading role) +2 (Abuse of public trust) +2 (Obstructed investigations) That gets us level... 43. Yikes. Consecutive vs. concurrent isn't the issue here; doing a $140MM wire fraud puts you on the hook for an insane sentence. So this is a case where the whale sushi sentence is... theoretically possible?! Wow.
- roywiggins 5y ago
  Mitchell Eppner agrees with you: https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-guilty-on https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-...
  - tptacek 5y ago
    There is no f'ing way she's getting 65 years though.
    - checkyoursudo 5y ago
      My gut says that she'll get about 20 (or 20 years worth of concurrent), and get out in about 8 to 10.
      - roywiggins 5y ago
        My understanding is that on federal charges you have to serve at least 85% or so of the sentence, even with good behavior.
        checkyoursudo 5y ago
        Ah, in that case, I'll place my marker on 11 years with 9.35 served.
        karlzt 5y ago
        Others are guilty too, that number could go down to 20 months served.
- tiahura 5y ago
  Yikes. Plus, my understanding is that > 10 means no minimum security camp and > 20 means no low security, so she would start off in medium security. - assuming it works the same way with woman as with men)
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    Is that how it works? I’d hope you’re wrong, but have no reason to think so, because I’d like to believe that the kind of prison you’re sent to is related to how much of a risk you are to others. I’m not remotely an Elizabeth Holmes fan, but she isn’t going to be beating people up in the prison yard.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > I’d hope you’re wrong, but have no reason to think so, because I’d like to believe that the kind of prison you’re sent to is related to how much of a risk you are to others. I think in theory escape risk is a part of it, too, and people with extremely long sentences are presumed to have rather more motivation to escape.
      - kstrauser 5y ago
        I guess that makes sense, although on a personal level, I’d rather serve time in a minimum security prison and get it over with than escape, inevitably get caught, and have additional time in a worse place.
        Ntrails 5y ago
        I don't know, in principal I'd rather go and live in south america on a modest income (assuming you have carefully sequestered some investments) for the rest of my life than spend 20+ in prison which is effectively the rest of my life anyway.
        kstrauser 5y ago
        Alright, fair point.
_moof 5y ago
"This Twitter guy" has probably forgotten more about federal criminal law than anyone on this site will ever learn. https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/ https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/

tptacek 5y ago

I missed some guidelines stuff; there's a separate section for role in the offense, and another for obstruction. The tally I get: 7 (Base offense) +24 ($140MM in damages) +2 (10+ victims) +2 (Sophisticated means) +4 (Leading role) +2 (Abuse of public trust) +2 (Obstructed investigations) That gets us level... 43. Yikes. Consecutive vs. concurrent isn't the issue here; doing a $140MM wire fraud puts you on the hook for an insane sentence. So this is a case where the whale sushi sentence is... theoretically possible?! Wow.

roywiggins 5y ago
Mitchell Eppner agrees with you: https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-guilty-on https://mitchellepner.substack.com/p/elizabeth-holmes-found-...
- tptacek 5y ago
  There is no f'ing way she's getting 65 years though.
  - checkyoursudo 5y ago
    My gut says that she'll get about 20 (or 20 years worth of concurrent), and get out in about 8 to 10.
    - roywiggins 5y ago
      My understanding is that on federal charges you have to serve at least 85% or so of the sentence, even with good behavior.
      - checkyoursudo 5y ago
        Ah, in that case, I'll place my marker on 11 years with 9.35 served.
        karlzt 5y ago
        Others are guilty too, that number could go down to 20 months served.
tiahura 5y ago
Yikes. Plus, my understanding is that > 10 means no minimum security camp and > 20 means no low security, so she would start off in medium security. - assuming it works the same way with woman as with men)
- kstrauser 5y ago
  Is that how it works? I’d hope you’re wrong, but have no reason to think so, because I’d like to believe that the kind of prison you’re sent to is related to how much of a risk you are to others. I’m not remotely an Elizabeth Holmes fan, but she isn’t going to be beating people up in the prison yard.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I’d hope you’re wrong, but have no reason to think so, because I’d like to believe that the kind of prison you’re sent to is related to how much of a risk you are to others. I think in theory escape risk is a part of it, too, and people with extremely long sentences are presumed to have rather more motivation to escape.
    - kstrauser 5y ago
      I guess that makes sense, although on a personal level, I’d rather serve time in a minimum security prison and get it over with than escape, inevitably get caught, and have additional time in a worse place.
      - Ntrails 5y ago
        I don't know, in principal I'd rather go and live in south america on a modest income (assuming you have carefully sequestered some investments) for the rest of my life than spend 20+ in prison which is effectively the rest of my life anyway.
        kstrauser 5y ago
        Alright, fair point.

_moof 5y ago

"This Twitter guy" has probably forgotten more about federal criminal law than anyone on this site will ever learn. https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/ https://brownwhitelaw.com/kenneth-p-white/