Friday, February 15, 2008

The United States of America vs. Reid Stowe .......30,000 Pounds of Marijuana

Celebrating 5502 Days Since Reid's Sentencing Hearing for Conspiricy to Import Marijauna - Literally Tons of the Stuff

Below is the Cover sheet followed by the full text of Reid's Sentencing Hearing in US District Court, Bangor, Maine.


(The following proceeding was held in open court, before the Honorable Morton A. Brody, Judge, United States District Court, District of Maine, at the United States Courthouse, Bangor, Maine, on January 22, 1993, beginning at 3:08 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. In the matter of United States versus Stowe, the government ready for sentence?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Government is prepared, your Honor.

THE COURT: Defendant's ready?

MS. COHEN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. First of all, let me ask you, counsel, whether or not you've had an opportunity to go over with your client the presentence report that's been prepared in this matter?

MR. COHEN: Yes, I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: And are there any additions or corrections you want to bring to the attention of the court?

MS. COHEN: There are none.

THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you, Mr. Stowe, whether or not you've had an opportunity — adequate opportunity to go over the presentence report with your lawyer and whether or not you have any questions about the the contents of that report?

THE DEFENDANT: I went over the report and found it to be fair and true.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.


Does the government wish to be heard in the matter of sentence, Mr. McCloskey?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor, the government in this particular case is going to make a recommendation of eighteen months imprisonment. As the court knows, this involved an importation of approximately 10- to 14,000 pounds of marijuana, a substantially large importation along the Maine coast.

In this particular case, the difficulty obviously that is facing the court is that other defendants in the case who are admittedly of much more substantial involvement than this particular defendant received unbelievably light sentences in the District of Massachusetts. And the question then becomes, what ought this defendant receive in this district given the fact that people higher up the ladder than he was received very, very light sentences, and why does he deserve a sentence in the range of eighteen months?

The government would indicate to the court that there has been a long history of cases in the District of Massachusetts where large-scale marijuana smugglers have gotten very, very light sentences, unexplainably so. And the government would argue that, because of that, the court should not use these sentences as a guide to determine what this defendant ought to get in this particular case. It simply ought not to be done. And the court ought to make a


determination based upon an assessment of this particular individual's involvement based upon the amount of marijuana in this case. What does the defendant deserve in this district? And not necessarily use the District of Massachusetts as a guide on determining what this defendant ought to get.

It is true that this defendant has provided cooperation to the extent that he was able to do it. It is also true that the major players who were involved in Massachusetts provided cooperation.

THE COURT: Well, I guess I'd like to know how much cooperation that you received from this defendant.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Mr. McCarthy submitted to the court a statement of the defendant's cooperation in this matter which fairly accurately portrays this defendant's cooperation. He was truthful, the government believes. He was debriefed. He provided the information that he knew, but because of the staleness of the information in terms of the time frame of the case, it never really resulted in any other indictments. It did not result in him presenting any further testimony to the grand jury. It did not result in his testimony at trial. Nor is it anticipated that there will be any testimony in which his help will be needed. So he was truthful, but it really didn't amount to very much in terms of what happened as a result of that information.


It really is historical information that filled in a gap here, a gap there, but really resulted in no further prosecutions.

THE COURT: Well, obviously, through no fault, I guess, of Mr. Stowe.

MR. McCLOSKEY: No question.

THE COURT: Since the statute's evidently run on the other co-defendants.

MR. McCLOSKEY: No, and it is a truth of those cases, your Honor, that those people who are most responsible or have the greatest culpability are frequently and most frequently are able to provide the greatest information, so people like William Terry and McCauleys were in a situation where they were much more involved in this operation or involved at a higher level and were involved in several smuggles and, therefore, they had more information to provide to the government. So that shouldn't be necessarily held against the defendant.

But that's the nature of these cases and the government suggests that, in this district, the history has been of individuals involved like this particular person have generally received in the area of 18 to 24 months, with cooperation I might add, and frequently cooperation that has resulted in prosecutions and then their testimony at trial. So the government would suggest that a recommendation of 18


months is one that is appropriate given the level of this defendant's involvement, given the amount of marijuana in this case.

The government has calculated what this defendant would be receiving if he were being sentenced under the guidelines and it would be somewhere in the area of 135 to 168 months. So an 18-month sentence --

THE COURT: That's exactly what it would be.

MR. McCLOSKEY: So an 18-month sentence where he's eligible for parole in two-thirds at the most, he's going to do a year's time in jail. So the government believes that the sentence is appropriate. Thank you very much.

THE COURT: Let me just ask you. I don't know whether you know or have this information or not, Mr. McCloskey. I've got a pretty good handle on Kevin McCauley and William Terry, III. Do you happen to know offhand or would your reports in any way reflect what role Christopher McCauley, Thomas Chamberlain or William Hubner played in this scenario?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honor, I am familiar with what is in the records, but I think I would be better advised to let the DEA agent here who is much more familiar than I am with this case to provide that information to the court if he can.

THE COURT: Do you know who those — can you tell


me what role Christopher McCauley, Thomas Chamberlain and William Hubner played in this?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honor, this is Agent Bryfonski, John Bryfonski.

MR. BRYFONSKI: Yes, your Honor, I do.

Essentially, Christopher McCauley, the brother of John McCauley, participated in some of the earlier smuggles dating back prior to 1987 events.

THE COURT: Well, Keven McCauley actually hired the defendant; right?


THE COURT: And he was, in the pecking order, a step or two above Stowe; right?


THE COURT: Where in that pecking order did Christopher McCauley come?

MR. BRYFONSKI: Christopher McCauley, your Honor, essentially was the helper and an individual who assisted in providing transportation and coordinating events in the islands, again I believe, without refreshing my recollection, going back prior to the "87 smuggle.

THE COURT: All right. What about Chamberlain?

MR. BRYFONSKI: Thomas Chamberlain was an individual who participated in some of the offloading of the marijuana, essentially in the North Carolina smuggles dating


back again prior to 1987, and as well as with the other individual.

THE COURT: Hubner?

MR. BRYFONSKI: Correct, I believe.

THE COURT: He was an offloader?

MR. BRYFONSKI: I believe so, sir, and I believe that, again without refreshing my recollection, that was an individual who again participated in some of the North Carolina/Massachusetts events.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

MR. BRYFONSKI: You're welcome.

THE COURT: Anything else from the government?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Nothing further.

THE COURT: All right. Does the defendant wish to be heard on the matter of sentence?

MS. COHEN: Yes, your Honor, as your Honor I'm sure is aware based upon the letter that we have submitted to you.

THE COURT: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I received a letter from Ms. Cohen dated January 20, and attached to that letter were numerous letters from various people and relatives of the defendant.

Did you distribute copies of these to the government?

MS. COHEN: Your Honor, I did send a copy to the government.

MR. McCLOSKEY: I have them.


MS. COHEN: I believe they received them.

THE COURT: Thank you. Go ahead.

MS. COHEN: Your Honor, from that letter all parties, I believe, can garner that we are applying today for your Honor to consider what I think would be somewhat of an unusual sentence given drug cases, and that would be to sentence my client to a nonincarceratory sentence. And I preface my remarks by starting there, by telling your Honor that we understand that drug charges are very serious. My client understands that and I understand that what we're asking for is in some situations very unusual.

You've asked questions today regarding the role of my client's position in this event, and I suggest to you that my client was involved in a large-scale operation for a limited time period. It was a limited time period for approximately two months while he was waiting for this transaction to take place in the Caribbean.

And it was during a time period, your Honor, where his life was somewhat in limbo. He was in between a trip which he had taken to the Antarctic on an exploratory mission and going back to New York where he was going to be embarking on a new career and a new life.

He made grave mistakes. He broke the law.

THE COURT: He broke it big time. We're not talking about a couple of ounces or a marijuana cigarette.


We're talking about 30,000 pounds of marijuana, aren't we?

MS. COHEN: It is a -- your Honor, it is a huge amount of marijuana, and I could not in any way suggest to you that it is not a grave violation. It is. What I can suggest to you or ask you to think about is what he did after this activity. He was wrong --

THE COURT: Let me help you a little bit. I've been thinking about this for a long time, ever since the information was presented to me and I'm going to hear you out, but just so maybe you can help me in my decision because I haven't made a decision yet.

I don't have any question about what your client's done since this incident. Obviously, he's done a lot of good work. He's helped this blind -- this organization for the blind, the Associated Blind, Inc., and others. He obviously has a background which should have made him know better when he made this decision to -- knowing decision to get involved in this.

And so I don't have any problem about his rehabilitation or the fact that he is a good man. A lot of good men and a lot of good women get caught up in the criminal law and get involved in making other people not so good because of the actions that they do with marijuana or other drugs. And I'm concerned about that to some extent.
I'm also concerned about what really appears to me to be


outrageous sentences in Massachusetts. And I am not going to be influenced or bound or motivated by these what I consider to be off-the-wall sentences in Massachusetts. I don't have enough information about them, but I can guess that — I don't have to guess. I guess I have enough information to know that there was a lot of cooperation by a lot of people. That helped, but even aside from that, I don't understand those sentences.

I don't understand a lot of the sentences on marijuana and other drugs in Massachusetts in any event. And the sentences that were given to these co-defendants or these defendants in related activities is not going to overly influence this court's sentence in this case.

So I guess what I'm telling you is I am well aware of your client's good deeds since this incident. And I think that they were obviously taken earnestly and not for the purpose of trying to posture himself in a way that would put himself in good light as far as the court is concerned. I don't question his motives. I don't question his sincerity. The only thing I'm questioning here is his involvement with a dramatically high amount of marijuana. We're talking about big stakes in the marijuana situation.
And so, with that context, I'd be interested in hearing from you as to how I can in good conscience and under the law allow this defendant to, in effect, walk.


MS. COHEN: Your Honor, my client's position in this transaction is different significantly, I believe, from the other people that were involved in this case. It is my understanding that he's one of the only few -- there may be one other person where this was the sole transaction. That these people had been involved for upwards of five years. That they had been involved in multiple transactions involving other situations in the Caribbean and up throughout the East Coast, namely North Carolina as well as in Maine.

This was his first endeavor. It was his first involvement with this group of people. There was no excuse for his bad judgment, none. If I can suggest to you, when he was met by these people, his motivation was a poor one and the motivation was that he was financially insolvent. Someone offered him a large sum of money to do this and he was headed back to New York where he intended — his intentions were not to continue with these people, not to continue in a five-year path like other people in a drug-related business, but his intentions were to pursue the goals which he in fact has done.

And in this involvement -- he was down in the Caribbean, he was asked to participate by someone who had known his brothers or through some familial relationship and, based upon that motivation, lack of funds, he endeavored to engage in a very significant transfer of marijuana from one boat to


the other.

I will suggest to your Honor that, as soon as he did that, he ended all involvement with this transaction. He didn't do it upon face of an indictment or the fact that there was news that there was a warrant out for his arrest. He stopped this contact of and unto itself because he wanted to. He moved back to New York two days after the boat — he found out that the boats were in the Caribbean, he flew back to New York, and from that moment on, he endeavored to lead a life that was different.
He did it. He made a mistake.

He lived in New York with his name on the door. He was a public figure because he was advertising under his name, the name he had used in the Caribbean, as an artist in New York City.

He did nothing in any way to obstruct justice or stay away from the law, and four years after this conduct had been committed, he was arrested. And when he was arrested, he never once denied his responsibilities.

THE COURT: He didn't turn himself in, did he?

MS. COHEN: He did not, your Honor. But for going to the United States Attorney's Office and saying, "I don't believe that I'm wanted, but I did violate a crime."
Your Honor, there was not a warrant out for his arrest that we're aware of.


THE COURT: You say he did go to the U.S. Attorney's Office?

MS. COHEN: No, he did not. He did not do that. But for doing that, your Honor, there was not a warrant out for his arrest that we're aware of. No one had informed us that the government was looking for him.

What happened was one morning, very early in the morning, approximately 5:00, agents came to his home and addressed he and his wife, who is with him in court today. They immediately were brought down to the marshall's office in the Southern District of New York where, pursuant to Rule 40, he was transferred up here, almost immediately requested to speak to the United States Attorney where he offered to cooperate and do what he could. As you can tell, his cooperation was limited because, A., his involvement was limited; and B., it was — years had passed.

But he stopped this activity, your Honor, for no reason other than to lead a law-abiding life, and he's done that since then.

I think there is another factor regarding the people in this case aside from the fact that they were prosecuted in Massachusetts, and aside from the fact that, as the probation indicates, my client would have been prosecuted in Massachusetts, but there was some slipping through the cracks and he was never arrested. The McCauley brothers, as I


understand it, had a prior record that these people -- the McCauley brothers I believe had prior records, although it is not indicated in the report, and I've been unable to verify that, your Honor. But the information that we have is that they had actually been arrested before and I think that that is a distinctive character that is different between my client as well as these other people.

His role is limited to a one-time transaction. It was a two-month period and he stopped this activity based upon his own desires and I think that those are significant factors.

He has a very supportive family. His parents are here in the courtroom today, your Honor. They have written a letter to you. They have posted their home as bail in this case. They have traveled by car from North Carolina to be here to be with their son and to be supportive of him. And I think that, given that, he is somewhat unique in the level of support he does have from his family.

You would think and one would have hoped that because of such a supportive family he would have had the strength not to make this mistake. He didn't and he has to pay for it.

At the same time, I urge you to think about what he has done, why he stopped this path that he embarked upon. Think about the motivation that stopped him from continuing on and think about what he's done over the past four years. And also consider what he's done since he was arrested and he's


done whatever he could do and he still remains -- he's still willing and able to do whatever he can do and I think that if there is a situation, your Honor, where leniency would be warranted, I think that this may be such a case.

THE COURT: I don't think there is any question about that. There is no question that leniency is indicated. The question is how much leniency.

We're talking about a sentence that carries up to a life imprisonment in this case; right?

MS. COHEN: That's correct.

THE COURT: There's got to be some -- there's some room between no jail time and life. I mean, I hear what you say and everything you say is true, I think supported in the record, but the record also indicates the amounts of marijuana involved and I just can't look the other way. I mean, I'm going to try to look as sideways as I can, but I'm not going to completely ignore the fact that we're dealing with all these drugs.

You know, under other circumstances, if your client did not come out of the mold he came and did not do what he did and did not have the strength of character that he obviously has shown since the incident, we're not even talking about 18 months, we're not even talking about 2 or 3 years, we're talking about significant time. And I'm not talking about significant time here, but I'm talking about time.


I cannot in all good conscience under the law just suspend a sentence or give him no sentence.

MS. COHEN: Since your Honor is inclined to impose some kind of incarceration, then what I have to do is ask you to be as lenient as possible.

THE COURT: That's exactly what I intend to do, as lenient as possible under the circumstances, but what he has done speaks so loudly that it's very difficult to hear what he's accomplished since the incident. And I hear what you say and I am persuaded by what you say to a certain extent, but I think just to even consider a nonincarceration sentence I think is totally without any kind of support with these facts and with the law. And there is no way that I can in good conscience do that, nor will I do that. I'm not even sure they would do it in Massachusetts, maybe they would.

The other end of the coin is obviously, if he was sentenced in Massachusetts, we wouldn't be faced with the problem. The other end of the coin is that, if he was sentenced under the guidelines, which he could very well have been, we're looking at up to 168 months. That's a lot of time. We're looking at a range between 135 and 168 months.

I'm sorry I interrupted you. Go ahead. Is there anything else that you want to say?

MS. COHEN: I'm very well aware, your Honor, that this case was prosecuted in Maine. My client was well aware


of the potential guideline ramifications of his case. We've discussed them thoroughly before we entered a plea. We discussed them before he walked into the prosecutor's office to cooperate.

I would ask your Honor to consider his role, consider the role of the people that were in Massachusetts, and their past behavior and to base your sentence in the light that is fair regarding those people and, as I say, just be as fair as your Honor believes he can be.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

Does your client wish to be heard by way of allocution?

MS. COHEN: (Nodding in the affirmative.)

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stowe.

THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I had a few things prepared to say and they have all been discussed here. I am before sentencing guidelines, I believe, because my involvement was the summer of '87. Since then, I wasn't involved.

They agreed to put it pre-sentencing guidelines. Therefore, it's all up to you. It's not to be compared to what the sentencing guidelines are. It's up to you to decide what I'm going to do.

And obviously, I was involved in a big operation and it was a big mistake and I'm sorry that I broke the law. I don't know if they've read other things that I have been



I realize that I broke the law.

I didn't know I was in trouble. I lived for five years there in New York with my name on the bell and my name on the phone book.

And I have a stack of material this thick (gesturing) that I turned over to the court that is magazine articles about me, what I'm doing with NASA and the space program, with the program that I've created involving human behavior, psychosocial issues, relevant for people to go into space. There's magazine articles that are in there. The president of the Explorers Club says that, if I succeed in what I'm doing, I'll be one of the greatest explorers ever.

I have a stack of letters from educational people that I've been working with over the last years where I've created an educational program for students of all ages that will be broadcast live via satellite and the director of the American Satellite Educators Association has said my program holds enormous educational potential.
So, I've been working real hard on a lot of things to make up for my past mistakes and including the last year that I've been working with the blind and I've created my own programs working intimately with groups of blind people teaching them relaxation and self-esteem.

I'm not sure that when someone reads a case and says,


These are the laws, we want to give the person the sentence for this law -- I can understand how they want to follow those things and do it.

I spent some time with Mr. Hawley and I felt that he was understanding about the things that I was working on and with a couple of other gentlemen here where they saw that what I was doing was very unique and in some way I hope that that would guide them a little bit up and above what the specific rules were, so that they could see what I was doing.

Now, I understand that you feel the same way about the rules and the laws because I was involved in this thing, and though they got off easier down there, though all of those guys had previous records and they hired me, they were able to help because they told on me and got me in four years later, there was nothing I could say because I didn't know anyone for four years involved in this.

And now I'm listening that they're asking for a sentence and that you're saying that you feel like you have to give me a sentence and I'm ready to accept anything and I'm ready to and I know I can continue with the goals that I have been working on no matter what happens to me. And I still have a hope at this moment that there is an alternative. Walking free isn't exactly what I had even imagined that I was doing.
And over the last more than a year since I was out on bail, my dad put the house up, I have not been able to travel


anywhere or go anywhere, and it's been stressful for my wife and my family. That year has gone by. There is more time coming up.

Now, I've been -- I think that I can do a good job helping society in the ways that can be counted and measured, the way that I'm helping the blind people here in New York.

I recently got invited to a NASA conference dealing with human policy issues for an extended period of time in space. I was the only operational person invited. I was the only explorer invited. I was the only person who was invited to that conference that had actually lived with a small group of people in an isolated, dangerous, high performance environment for an extended period of time.

So I've been contributing to the work that our nation is doing for preparing to go into space for an extended period of time. I have a lot of paperwork about that and I'm going to continue to do it.

The people who are helping roe with my project, I've made them aware that I was arrested because I got involved in a marijuana case in the summer of '87 and they were very supportive. They said, Well, that's real bad. Over the years we've known people that have gotten in trouble, too. We're still supporting you and we're still going to help you with the work that you're doing with the space program. And I think they will still help me even if I go to jail.


I think that there's maybe -- I don't know if there's an alternative that I could wear an ankle bracelet, my movements could be monitored and I could be sentenced to stay where I live in my apartment where I could continue to do the work that I do, except when I go out to the Associated Blind to help the blind people. So that I could be sentenced to stay in my apartment, so that I could wear an ankle bracelet, so that I can continue to do the work that I'm doing and not add further cost to the society. So that I could contribute rather than be a cost and be incarcerated.
And I'd like to know if you'd like to ask me any questions about that?

THE COURT: Yeah I'd like to know what you were thinking about or in terms -- or if you thought at all about all the people that would be using all this marijuana that you helped transport? Did that ever occur to you? Did you ever think about why it's against the law to do that? And what you were doing about —

I mean, there is no question that you were helping a lot of people and you are to be commended for it, and I'm sure no matter what I do, hopefully, there is enough inside you so that you're going to continue to do that regardless. It isn't a quid pro quo kind of situation, I hope. If it is, I've misjudged you.

But did you ever consider the ramifications of what you


were doing at the time you got involved in this? Did it ever occur to you — I mean, you're obviously a thinking person, a feeling person who was concerned about his fellow man. Did that ever reach your mind?

THE DEFENDANT: That people would be harmed by using the marijuana that I brought back? Did I think that they would be harmed by using the marijuana?

THE COURT: Did it ever occur to you to even assess that possibility?

THE DEFENDANT: I think that if I would have gotten involved with hard drugs or other things like that, more so. I didn't realize that I was harming people that much by doing that.

THE COURT: You knew it was against the law.

THE DEFENDANT: I knew it was against the law and I made a big mistake doing that and I was foolish to do it and it was a big mistake. And I hold no -- nothing against anyone. I'm ready to accept my punishment for it and, as I said, I still believe that I can contribute in many ways to society, many different projects that I'm working on, even if I am incarcerated.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Mr. Stowe. Do you have anything, any other witnesses or any other evidence you want to offer to the court?

MS. COHEN: No, Your Honor.


THE COURT: We have a plea agreement in this case; right?

MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: And part of the plea agreement, I take it, is to agree to — the United States agrees to move to dismiss the original indictment; is that correct?

MR. McCLOSKEY: That's correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: Now, under the original indictment, would the defendant be sentenced under the guidelines?

MR. McCLOSKEY: I believe so.

MS. COHEN: Your Honor, if I may respond to that. There was a good deal of discussion between Mr. McCarthy, who was the primary assistant that I was dealing with in this case, and there was no resolution as to that issue. Part of our plea agreement was to plea to a preindictment charge and we agreed essentially to not resolve the issue as to whether or not it was a guideline case. As far as I was concerned, it was not determined.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Judge, the indictment charges a guideline case. Now, what the court would have decided with respect to sentencing, whether it would have fallen within the guidelines or without the guidelines, would have been a matter of the contention I think at the time, but it charges a guideline case.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to approve the or


accept the plea agreement that was entered into between the parties — I guess it's July 28.

As I've indicated, at least preliminarily, there are several factors that the court has to take into consideration in imposing sentence, and some of the pressures on the court in imposing sentence have been highlighted dramatically by this case.

There is no question that we have a young man here who made a mistake and has been trying to the extent possible to come to grips with that, within his own community and within himself. The trouble is that the mistake, the first mistake, criminal mistake that the defendant made happened to be a gigantic one in terms of the amounts of marijuana.

And regardless of whether or not you feel, Mr. Stowe, that marijuana is not a great danger to anyone, that's the implication that I read from you, that really isn't the issue. I suppose that all of us and particularly the court has to understand that we are a nation of laws and, when these laws are promulgated, there is a reason for them. And to some extent, I suppose, there is a reason for significant penalties connected with arranging the transportation of or distributing or participating in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana in huge amounts.

There are obviously some people that think a great deal of money can be made by doing that and indeed a great deal of


money changed hands in this situation. I'm not saying that you became wealthy as a result. You obviously did not. But it's the money evidently that creates the reason for people getting involved in it who are on the edge, who but for the lure of that probably would not be involved in any kind of criminal activity at all.

In imposing sentence, the law requires me to take several different factors into consideration. I have to take into consideration, and do, the nature and circumstances of the offense. And that's on the minus side as far as you're concerned. On the plus side, the history and record of the defendant, the fact that you have not been involved in any kind of criminal activity before and I suspect will not be again hopefully, certainly comes down on the plus side of the ledger.

But I have to take into consideration the seriousness of the offense and the need to promote some respect for the law, and it doesn't give the court any great pleasure to sentence anybody to jail, particularly the people who have not been involved and should not be involved in this kind of activity and should not be in jail. One of the requirements that the law imposes upon me is to take into consideration the deterrent aspect of sentencing, not only the deterrent aspect for purposes of the individual, the defendant who appears before the court, but to deter other people who are


participating in or contemplating the participation in of that kind of conduct.

And I suppose that even the sentence that I'm going to give you is going to be looked upon by many people who may be involved in this kind of activity as pretty much of a joke in terms of the amount of marijuana involved. It's certainly not going to have any great deterrent effect, but I'm not going to give you an excessive sentence or a sentence that I would consider has direct relationship to the amount of marijuana involved because I don't think it would be just. I don't think it would be fair to you and the people who are concerned about you.

So what I do every day is try to balance some of these factors and that's what the law requires me to do.

I, also, am mindful of the fact that I have to try to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities and that's why I said I was concerned about these Massachusetts sentences that I consider to be frankly inappropriate. One of the reasons probably that sentencing guidelines came into being in any event is because of the disparity of sentencing in various states for all kinds of reasons, many of them having no direct relationship to the judicial process.

I, also, have to consider the prospects for rehabilitation. I think you've pretty much rehabilitated yourself if you needed any rehabilitation.


So, putting all these various factors together, I'm going to sentence you, Mr. Stowe, for a period of time which under most circumstances would be on the very lowest end of the scale and in this circumstance is on the very lowest end of the scale.
Is there anything further from either the government or the defendant?

MS. COHEN: No, your Honor.

MR. McCLOSKEY: (Shaking head in the negative)

THE COURT: All right. If you'll stand, please, Mr. Stowe. I'm going to sentence you to 12 months of incarceration. I don't know how much actual time that will amount to, but I suspect probably about two-thirds of it. And I want you to know that you are being sentenced to that very light sentence primarily because of what you have done and how you have tried to repay to some extent society and I'm hopeful that you will continue to do that.

It's the lowest sentence that I could in all good conscience give to you.
Does your client want to self-report?

MS. COHEN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right.

I'm going to allow the defendant to self-report on or about -- or on or before February 23, and the same bail will stand continued.


Anything further?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honor, we need a special assessment.

THE COURT: Special assessment of fifty dollars?

MR. McCLOSKEY: Yes, your Honor. And I'd ask the court to advise the defendant of his right to appeal.

THE COURT: I want to point out to you, Mr. Stowe, that you, as I'm sure your lawyer already has, that you have the right to appeal the sentence. If you have any questions, go over them with Mrs. Cohen, I'm sure she will answer any questions you may have.

MR. McCLOSKEY: Your Honor, we also move to dismiss the underlying indictment.

THE COURT: Without any objection?

MS. COHEN: Correct.

THE COURT: And the motion by the government to dismiss the underlying indictment will be granted and that matter will be dismissed.

All right. Court will be in recess. (Court recessed at 3:48 p.m.)



I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

Christine T. Fraga, RPR, CM Date N
Official U.S. Court Reporter

No comments:

Vandalism and Fair Use

It seems that some energetic fans of Mr. Stowe have discovered this site and have a problem with it's content; All posts are welcome here whether you agree with this blog or not; however, nonsensical posts will be deleted.

We suggest you research the following terms: public figure, parody, and fair use.....and lighten up a bit, hey?