4 ms·

Exactly. People were throwing out potential immunity, or other complete nonsense for cooperation. There weren’t even discussions about recommended prison time

Exactly. People were throwing out potential immunity, or other complete nonsense for cooperation. There weren’t even discussions about recommended prison time as that can blow the prosecutions case against SBF. The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> People were throwing out potential immunity... Yes, getting off scot-free seems unlikely. > The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation. Sure it is. The Feds will ask to suspend sentencing on these charges until their cooperation is completed. If they cooperate appropriately, they'll spend much less time in prison than if they'd pled not guitly.
elliekelly 4y ago
> The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation. That is absolutely the situation. That’s why you take the deal. They got her to plead to seven counts! There’s almost certainly an agreed-upon recommended sentencing.
- jcampbell1 4y ago
  Please just read the plea deal. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23495436-crypto-cooperator-ftx-alamedas-caroline-ellisons-plea-agreement-inner-city-press-on-the-case https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23495436-crypto-coop...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    I think you’re hung up on the number of years thing. The whole reason you cooperate is to get a reduced sentence. So of course that’s part of the deal. That’s the point of it. The formal agreement isn’t going to spell out “we will recommend X years” for a lot of reasons. First, what if she doesn’t cooperate? Or worse, lies and impedes the prosecution? More importantly, having a set-in-stone agreement like that for a specified number of years undermines your witness. And from the government’s perspective that’s the whole reason they do the deal: to have a witness. Imagine Caroline Ellison on the witness stand. “Ms. Ellison you were looking at charges that could bring 110 years of prison or more, is that correct? And how many years did the prosecutor’s office agree to recommend instead in exchange for your testimony today?” There’s really no good answer, is there? The best answer your witness can give in that situation is something along the lines of “I’m cooperating with the hopes that the prosecution will recommend leniency to the court at my sentencing.” So that’s exactly the situation they’ve put her in. They’re under no obligation, per the agreement, but it’s absolutely on the table. And, assuming she holds up her end of the bargain, they will definitely file a motion with the court to have her sentence drastically reduced. Although the judge will be free to ignore it.
    - Kon-Peki 4y ago
      The defense asks that question to every single cooperating witness. They also ask every single expert witness how much they got paid for their testimony. It doesn’t sway the jury.
- abigail95 4y ago
  If they agreed to it - it would be in the document. Instead it says: > This Office cannot, and does not, make any promise of representation as to what sentence the defendant wil receive, and will not recommend any specific sentence to the Court. That's not in every federal plea agreement. If there was a deal done for sentencing guidance, it would be there to read. A common one is something like "Acceptance of Responsibility", where parties to the agreement say that because of their cooperation, the government will provide evidence to the court to help meet a reduction via the sentencing guidelines. I would accept this deal if I were Caroline Ellison because the alternative of being found guilty would give me a much harsher sentence. Pleading guilty, admitting your involvement in the crime, and making restitutions are parts of the sentencing guidelines. Everyone has access to these - you don't need a deal to get them. You plead guilty - you get a lesser sentence. That's why she (and I would too) did it.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    I just think of the scene in Archer where the interrogations begin with each character saying "I want full immunity.", leads into a montage of them ratting out everything everyone else has ever done, and ends with the interrogator saying "I didn't say anything about immunity, you're the one who brought it up."

ceejayoz 4y ago

> People were throwing out potential immunity... Yes, getting off scot-free seems unlikely. > The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation. Sure it is. The Feds will ask to suspend sentencing on these charges until their cooperation is completed. If they cooperate appropriately, they'll spend much less time in prison than if they'd pled not guitly.

elliekelly 4y ago

> The idea that there is some agreement for say 5 years recommended is not on the table in this type of situation. That is absolutely the situation. That’s why you take the deal. They got her to plead to seven counts! There’s almost certainly an agreed-upon recommended sentencing.

jcampbell1 4y ago
Please just read the plea deal. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23495436-crypto-cooperator-ftx-alamedas-caroline-ellisons-plea-agreement-inner-city-press-on-the-case https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23495436-crypto-coop...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- elliekelly 4y ago
  I think you’re hung up on the number of years thing. The whole reason you cooperate is to get a reduced sentence. So of course that’s part of the deal. That’s the point of it. The formal agreement isn’t going to spell out “we will recommend X years” for a lot of reasons. First, what if she doesn’t cooperate? Or worse, lies and impedes the prosecution? More importantly, having a set-in-stone agreement like that for a specified number of years undermines your witness. And from the government’s perspective that’s the whole reason they do the deal: to have a witness. Imagine Caroline Ellison on the witness stand. “Ms. Ellison you were looking at charges that could bring 110 years of prison or more, is that correct? And how many years did the prosecutor’s office agree to recommend instead in exchange for your testimony today?” There’s really no good answer, is there? The best answer your witness can give in that situation is something along the lines of “I’m cooperating with the hopes that the prosecution will recommend leniency to the court at my sentencing.” So that’s exactly the situation they’ve put her in. They’re under no obligation, per the agreement, but it’s absolutely on the table. And, assuming she holds up her end of the bargain, they will definitely file a motion with the court to have her sentence drastically reduced. Although the judge will be free to ignore it.
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    The defense asks that question to every single cooperating witness. They also ask every single expert witness how much they got paid for their testimony. It doesn’t sway the jury.
abigail95 4y ago
If they agreed to it - it would be in the document. Instead it says: > This Office cannot, and does not, make any promise of representation as to what sentence the defendant wil receive, and will not recommend any specific sentence to the Court. That's not in every federal plea agreement. If there was a deal done for sentencing guidance, it would be there to read. A common one is something like "Acceptance of Responsibility", where parties to the agreement say that because of their cooperation, the government will provide evidence to the court to help meet a reduction via the sentencing guidelines. I would accept this deal if I were Caroline Ellison because the alternative of being found guilty would give me a much harsher sentence. Pleading guilty, admitting your involvement in the crime, and making restitutions are parts of the sentencing guidelines. Everyone has access to these - you don't need a deal to get them. You plead guilty - you get a lesser sentence. That's why she (and I would too) did it.
- saalweachter 4y ago
  I just think of the scene in Archer where the interrogations begin with each character saying "I want full immunity.", leads into a montage of them ratting out everything everyone else has ever done, and ends with the interrogator saying "I didn't say anything about immunity, you're the one who brought it up."