One of the angriest posts I have ever written
by: Ryan • November 14, 2013 • no comments
One of the angriest posts I have ever written was this one. It involved a prosecutor who continued to make a sentencing argument, time and time again, despite no authority -- statutory or case law -- for it, and plenty of authority against it. I was convinced he did so because the sheer absolutism of his confidence overwhelmed less-experienced defense attorneys, and therefore he managed to get greater sentences than the law required.
It appears there was a different prosecutor who made essentially -- not quite but close -- to the same argument. This time, the argument was made out of Marion County. And this time, the prosecutor won at the trial level, over defense counsel's objection. And it was reversed today, in this opinion.
The issue in both today's opinion and my old post involve the interplay between separate victims and separate criminal episodes. I encourage you to check out the old, angry post and the excellent analysis by Judge Nakamoto.
Incidentally, the opinion also resolves an irritating conundrum that afflicted appellate attorneys, and it resolved it in favor of defendants. If you're a procedural nerd, you might want to check it out for that reason alone.
