4 ms·

I'm sure SBF has plenty of dirt on her as well, and he'll start talking much sooner than anticipated. She will go to jail, definitely.

mediaman 4y ago
Depends how much they needed her cooperation, which will determine how much of a deal she got, if any. If they wanted her cooperation, but didn't absolutely need it, they may have struck a cooperation deal in which she still sees some prison time, but a lot less than she would have after a full prosecution. My gut says that because he was so sloppy in implicating himself, that DOJ may not have strictly needed her, and so total immunity for her is unlikely.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  There is zero chance she was offered a deal. She is cooperating voluntarily in hopes of leniency. Deals screw her credibility on the stand. She will negotiate a deal when all the cases are over.
  - singleshot_ 4y ago
    This is not correct. Plenty of would-be defendants take deals to testify. Negotiating a deal after you testify is a ridiculous idea and if it has ever happened once, I would love to hear the story.
    - jcampbell1 4y ago
      She is getting the leniency from the sentencing reform act of 1984 which is predicated on cooperation. No way prosecutors have given her a damn thing. Yes, many cases use snitches because that is the only way to win the case, but it is fraught with peril because of the obvious incentive to lie. Prosecutors avoid deals, and sentencing guidelines already provide for leniency for cooperation. When it is all over, they may, at their own discretion, decide not to pursue charges against her.
      - singleshot_ 4y ago
        Out of perhaps an over abundance of curiosity, what would be your take on, say, Massachusetts Rules of Evidence Section 1104? What sorts of things do you think Massachusetts would promise a witness?
        jcampbell1 4y ago
        They don’t make specific promises except as a last resort because of things like 1104. I know a specific example of the feds losing a case because they granted immunity to get someone to fly to the US to testify. The witness completely blew the prosecution’s case. A federal prosecutor losing is quite the stain on their reputation. Immunity deals are the fastest way to blow a case. The witness is supposed to say they cooperated because the law provides lighter sentences for those who cooperate voluntarily.
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        I think a more reasonable interpretation is “they make specific promises so frequently that there had to be a rule enacted to deal with it. I agree that you know about one case where a cooperation witness with immunity caused a problem. As to your initial claims that there is “zero chance she was offered a deal” or that any cooperation must be voluntary, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
- akiselev 4y ago
  IANAL so please correct me but here’s how I understand it: there are three levels of cooperation. The informal one is basically just telling (some of) the truth during interrogation and agreeing to testify, where her lawyer gets to enter “she cooperated” as evidence during sentencing, but she might still get off scott free, or a judge might ignore the cooperation entirely if she’s found guilty. If SBF pleas guilty anyway, this cooperation is pretty much useless but carries the most credibility. She can cooperate as part of a guilty plea [1] in which case the prosecutor provides the judge with a sentencing recommendation. The judge can still sentence her within the guidelines at his discretion, though usually the plea deal is on a smaller set of charges than the indictment so its a net win regardless and brings double jeopardy into play since it counts as a conviction. The last kind is total immunity which sounds nice in theory but is more dangerous for both sides. She’d have to spill all of the beans on everything within the bounds of her immunity which will be broad. If she is ever caught in a lie or a deliberate omission, the immunity deal flies out the window and everything she said as part of the deal can be used against her at trial. Waiving one’s 5th amendment rights is usually a stipulation of immunity agreements - total honesty or guaranteed prison time. It remains to be seen how much she is cooperating. Edit: [1] turns out the DoJ has several different types of plea agreements and even a handy guide: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-guide-plea-bargaining-under-federal-sentencing-guidelines https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-gu...
ghostly_s 4y ago
Well typically turning State's Witness is rewarded with immunity.
spoonjim 4y ago
First one to flip usually wins.
g42gregory 4y ago
He is a much bigger "prize" for the prosecution. She had low profile and not all that well known to the electorate. Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons. If she cooperated first, there is a good chance of immunity or very low sentence.
- sheepscreek 4y ago
  Yep. And he lives in a $40M penthouse apartment overlooking the ocean. That is sure to get people riled up (a jury - if it every goes to trial).
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  > Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons. Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus). If anything women have been getting it harder.
  - bloodyplonker22 4y ago
    Adam Neumann did not even commit a crime. The only "crime" he committed was being such a great salesperson to VCs and getting a ridiculous valuation from them. This comparison is ridiculous.
  - nordsieck 4y ago
    > Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus). There are plenty of male founders who got popped for fraud. Trevor Milton (of Nikola infamy) is an easy one that comes to mind.
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    Neumann was never accused of a crime. Jeff Skilling (Enron) served 12 years. Ken Lay (Enron) died before sentencing, but was facing up to 45 years. Bernard Ebbers (Worldcom) served 13 years.
  - 4y ago

mediaman 4y ago

Depends how much they needed her cooperation, which will determine how much of a deal she got, if any. If they wanted her cooperation, but didn't absolutely need it, they may have struck a cooperation deal in which she still sees some prison time, but a lot less than she would have after a full prosecution. My gut says that because he was so sloppy in implicating himself, that DOJ may not have strictly needed her, and so total immunity for her is unlikely.

jcampbell1 4y ago
There is zero chance she was offered a deal. She is cooperating voluntarily in hopes of leniency. Deals screw her credibility on the stand. She will negotiate a deal when all the cases are over.
- singleshot_ 4y ago
  This is not correct. Plenty of would-be defendants take deals to testify. Negotiating a deal after you testify is a ridiculous idea and if it has ever happened once, I would love to hear the story.
  - jcampbell1 4y ago
    She is getting the leniency from the sentencing reform act of 1984 which is predicated on cooperation. No way prosecutors have given her a damn thing. Yes, many cases use snitches because that is the only way to win the case, but it is fraught with peril because of the obvious incentive to lie. Prosecutors avoid deals, and sentencing guidelines already provide for leniency for cooperation. When it is all over, they may, at their own discretion, decide not to pursue charges against her.
    - singleshot_ 4y ago
      Out of perhaps an over abundance of curiosity, what would be your take on, say, Massachusetts Rules of Evidence Section 1104? What sorts of things do you think Massachusetts would promise a witness?
      - jcampbell1 4y ago
        They don’t make specific promises except as a last resort because of things like 1104. I know a specific example of the feds losing a case because they granted immunity to get someone to fly to the US to testify. The witness completely blew the prosecution’s case. A federal prosecutor losing is quite the stain on their reputation. Immunity deals are the fastest way to blow a case. The witness is supposed to say they cooperated because the law provides lighter sentences for those who cooperate voluntarily.
        singleshot_ 4y ago
        I think a more reasonable interpretation is “they make specific promises so frequently that there had to be a rule enacted to deal with it. I agree that you know about one case where a cooperation witness with immunity caused a problem. As to your initial claims that there is “zero chance she was offered a deal” or that any cooperation must be voluntary, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
akiselev 4y ago
IANAL so please correct me but here’s how I understand it: there are three levels of cooperation. The informal one is basically just telling (some of) the truth during interrogation and agreeing to testify, where her lawyer gets to enter “she cooperated” as evidence during sentencing, but she might still get off scott free, or a judge might ignore the cooperation entirely if she’s found guilty. If SBF pleas guilty anyway, this cooperation is pretty much useless but carries the most credibility. She can cooperate as part of a guilty plea [1] in which case the prosecutor provides the judge with a sentencing recommendation. The judge can still sentence her within the guidelines at his discretion, though usually the plea deal is on a smaller set of charges than the indictment so its a net win regardless and brings double jeopardy into play since it counts as a conviction. The last kind is total immunity which sounds nice in theory but is more dangerous for both sides. She’d have to spill all of the beans on everything within the bounds of her immunity which will be broad. If she is ever caught in a lie or a deliberate omission, the immunity deal flies out the window and everything she said as part of the deal can be used against her at trial. Waiving one’s 5th amendment rights is usually a stipulation of immunity agreements - total honesty or guaranteed prison time. It remains to be seen how much she is cooperating. Edit: [1] turns out the DoJ has several different types of plea agreements and even a handy guide: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-guide-plea-bargaining-under-federal-sentencing-guidelines https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-gu...

ghostly_s 4y ago

Well typically turning State's Witness is rewarded with immunity.

spoonjim 4y ago

First one to flip usually wins.

g42gregory 4y ago

He is a much bigger "prize" for the prosecution. She had low profile and not all that well known to the electorate. Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons. If she cooperated first, there is a good chance of immunity or very low sentence.

sheepscreek 4y ago
Yep. And he lives in a $40M penthouse apartment overlooking the ocean. That is sure to get people riled up (a jury - if it every goes to trial).
CydeWeys 4y ago
> Plus, prosecuting her may not even look all that good, for identity politics reasons. Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus). If anything women have been getting it harder.
- bloodyplonker22 4y ago
  Adam Neumann did not even commit a crime. The only "crime" he committed was being such a great salesperson to VCs and getting a ridiculous valuation from them. This comparison is ridiculous.
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > Strongly disagree with this. Look at how they threw the book at Elizabeth Holmes (vs, say, Adam Neumann, or any other male founder from the last decade plus). There are plenty of male founders who got popped for fraud. Trevor Milton (of Nikola infamy) is an easy one that comes to mind.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  Neumann was never accused of a crime. Jeff Skilling (Enron) served 12 years. Ken Lay (Enron) died before sentencing, but was facing up to 45 years. Bernard Ebbers (Worldcom) served 13 years.
- 4y ago