[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I do not understand this part. How do courts decide who should stay in jail and who should not during the appeal process? He was convicted and his sentence should start now. If, and only if, the appeal process determines the conviction was in error, should he be released from prison. Appeals can stretch on for years sometimes.

I won't pretend to know everything about apellate procedure, but it is my understanding that whether or not the defendant remains free during the appeals process is at the discretion of the judge.

Apparently, the defense has linked the argument for leniency in the article, or perhaps some other argument, to the constitutional premise of "innocent until proven guilty" and the judge either bought it or just didn't care enough to argue with it. It's hard to say without having the brief available.

I can explain more if you like, but not a whole lot more. My knowledge of US criminal law is still very rudimentary.

"The court's sentence today reaffirms the principle that all people -- no matter what their title or position -- are equal before the law," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman in a statement.

This part made me lol. Raman knows that isn't true. He has enough legal background to know better. What he is really saying here is "The court's effective non-sentence and this statement reaffirm the principle that all Principal Deputy Assistant Attorneys General are more interested in kissing ass and reassuring a citizenry that has rightly been questioning their legal system for some time now than doing what the hell they are supposed to be doing; advising the state on how to maintain an effective legal system."

It is impossible for all people to be equal before US criminal law because no one can understand it in its entirety. Even the best criminal law attorneys of our time can't understand all criminal law, to say nothing of the tort law, tax law, civil law, etc etc and the derivatives thereof.
A system of laws which is understandable by no one, and all but inaccessible to non-professionals(unequal), lends itself to selective enforcement(unequal), fraud(unequal), abuse(unequal), and misinterpretation or harmful reinterpretation(unequal). Even that is just one type of iniquity under US law. We haven't even gotten into the nebulous areas of criminal intent or selective judicial precedence.

Raman knows this, and yet he makes statements like the one cited. He's abusing public trust, just as Rep. Jefferson did, he's just doing it in a different way.