zimmie is the first fool of April!

Black's Law Dictionary: Sentencing: The postconviction stage of the criminal justice process in which the defendant is brought before hte court for impostion of sentence.

See that key word there: POSTCONVICTION

The prosecution rests...

Post means after, doesn't it?

"Final judgment in a criminal case," the [U.S. Supreme] Court has said, "means sentence. The sentence is the judgment." Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212.

Black's: "Conviction" and "convicted" mean the final judgment on a verdict or finding of guilty . . ."

There has been a verdict, but no conviction, legally.



Stevens was tried in a federal court, and so his trial is subject to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 32(k)(1) says "n the judgment of conviction, the court must set forth the plea, the jury verdict or the court's findings, the adjudication, and the sentence." As the rule makes clear, there is a distinction between the guilty verdict, an element, and the judgment of conviction.

do you see how finding someone guilty is not the same as setting sentence? how can you set aside a conviction that never happened?

"Final judgement on a verdict or finding of guilty" happens upon pronouncement of guilt.
That is the conviction.
I understand how you could be confused at such a technicality in the language but that is how it translates for we laymen.

Zimmie lays men.

zimmie, you can interpret it any way you want, but YOU ARE CONVICTED WHEN THE JURY ANNOUNCES ITS FINDINGS!

I don't know who read you the words from Black's dictionary,but go rob a bank and find out for yourself!!!

Are you going to tell us you served in JAG when you were in the Army?

This is why they don't let pay people like zimmie practice law. They read one sentence out of context and think they know that this sentence must be the law. Knd of like quoting a movie review out of context to make the biggest piece of shit seem "Thrilling", when teh review sadi "Not Thrilling." Actually, it is a good reason not to let people like zimmie vote, too.

Berman, a 1937 case, stands for the unremarkbale proposition that appeals can flow only form a "final judgment". A "final judgment" means conviction and sentencing. A conviction is not a "final judgment" for appeal purposes, but it does have its own effect. But, it cannot be the subject of an interlocutory appeal, generally.

If you care to, zimmie, read the whole fucking opinion (it is short) and see if you can understand. And stop using Google to learn tehlaw, it will onyl fuck you up as you have aptly demonstrated:

"On conviction upon an indictment containing several counts for using the mails to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 338) and for conspiracy to that end (18 U.S.C. § 88), petitioner was sentenced on each count to serve a year and a day, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. Execution of the sentence was suspended, and petitioner was placed on probation for two years. Petitioner appealed from the sentence.

While the appeal was pending and without its withdrawal, petitioner, fearing its [58 S.Ct. 166] dismissal, applied to the District Court for resentence. That court reimposed the prior sentence of imprisonment, again suspending its execution, and added a fine of $1 upon each count. The court did not vacate the prior sentence. Petitioner then appealed from the second sentence.

The Circuit Court of Appeals held that, by reason of suspension of its execution, the first sentence was interlocutory, and dismissed the first appeal. Assuming that appeal to be a nullity, the Court of Appeals thought that the District Court had power to resentence; that petitioner could not complain of the fine, as it was imposed at his request, and that the second sentence of imprisonment, if taken alone, was interlocutory. The judgment imposing the fine was affirmed, and the appeal from the second sentence of imprisonment was dismissed. 88 F.2d 645.

We are of the opinion that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the first appeal as interlocutory. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment. Miller v. Aderhold, 288 U.S. 206, 210; Hill v. Wampler, 298 U.S. 460, 464. Here, the imposition of the sentence was not suspended, but only its execution. The sentence was not vacated. It stood as a final determination of the merits of the criminal charge. To create finality, it was necessary that petitioner's conviction should be followed by sentence (Hill v. Wampler, supra), but, when so followed, the finality of the judgment was not lost, because execution was suspended. In criminal cases, as well as civil, the judgment is final for the purpose of appeal "when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits" and "leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined." St. Louis, Iron Mountain & S. R. Co. v. Southern Express Co., 108 U.S. 24, 28; United States v. Pile, 130 U.S. 280, 283; Heike v. United States, 217 U.S. 423, 429.

Petitioner stands a convicted felon, and, unless the judgment against him is vacated or reversed, he is subject to all the disabilities flowing from such a judgment. The record discloses that petitioner is a lawyer, and, by reason of his conviction, his license was subject to revocation (and petitioner says that he has been disbarred) without inquiry into his guilt or innocence. Matter of Ackerson, 218 App.Div. 388, 392, 218 N.Y.S. 654. His civil rights may be determined solely by reference to the judgment.

Placing petitioner upon probation did not affect the finality of the judgment. Probation is concerned with rehabilitation, not with the determination of guilt. It does not secure reconsideration of issues that have been determined, or change the judgment that has been rendered. Probation or suspension of sentence "comes as an act of grace to one convicted of a crime." Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 492-493. The considerations it involves are entirely apart from any reexamination of the merits of the litigation. Probation was designed "to aid the rehabilitation of a penitent offender;" "to take advantage of an opportunity for reformation which actual service of the suspended sentence might make less probable." Thus, probation cannot be demanded as a right. "The defendant stands convicted; he faces punishment, and cannot insist on terms or strike a bargain." Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 220. But, if final judgment determining his guilt has been rendered, he still has the opportunity to seek by appeal a reversal of that judgment, and thus to secure not an opportunity to reform, but vindication.

As the first sentence was a final judgment, and appeal therefrom was properly taken, the District Court was without jurisdiction during the pendency of that appeal to modify its judgment by resentencing the prisoner. Draper v. Davis, 102 U.S. 370, 371; Keyser v. Farr, 105 U.S. 265, 266; Spirou v. United States, 24 F.2d 796, 797; United States v. Radice, 40 F.2d 445, 446; United States v. Habib, 72 F.2d 271.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed so far as it dismissed the first appeal and affirmed the later judgment imposing the fine, and the cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Reversed."

Not in every case.

The Judge has some discretion and in some cases can render a verdict himself or set aside the jury's verdict.

Rare but it does happen.

which means nothing in regards to this case. the verdict being conviction
go back to the lounge, dipshit :gwave:

Lounge

chaise

Zimmie craves man-meat

Like when more than one synapse fires off at the same time in your empty brain-pan???


NC-Stupid-Mark
Pea-Brained Member

Coward Snitch


.

Wow, I thought Zimmie would be smart enough to let this thread go, but once again, more stupidity. I am constantly amazed by his stupidity. I used to work with the developmentally disabled and most of them would leave off after a while, Zimmie doesn't even have a capacity that the mentally retarded have!

yawn......

there are plenty of examples but you're welcome to beleive what you want....

ignorance is bliss

The Times Tribune
Scranton, PA.
Newsletter | NEWSFLASH | Subscribe to the paper

BY COULTER JONES
STAFF WRITER
Published: Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Updated: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:35 AM EST


WILKES-BARRE — Court of Common Pleas Senior Judge Michael T. Conahan can receive his monthly state pension, according to state law, until he is sentenced on the corruption charges to which he and former President Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. agreed in pleas with federal investigators.

Both men will likely lose pension benefits if convicted of the alleged crimes indicated in court documents, or if they are removed from the bench through judicial disciplinary courts. For the time being, though, Judge Conahan, who retired in 2007, can receive his monthly pension check until convicted, said Robert Gentzel, spokesman for the State Employees Retirement System.

“Forfeiture of pension benefits occurs upon conviction,” he said, “and conviction, in a legal sense, doesn’t happen until sentencing.”


The State Supreme Court could suspend Judge Cona-han and Judge Ciavarella independent of the FBI’s probe of the two justices. If suspended, neither man would be granted his pension. The state Judicial Conduct Board can pursue a case against the two men to remove them as well. Attempts to reach Joseph Massa, the conduct board’s chief counsel, were unsuccessful Tuesday. As of 6 p.m., the state Supreme Court had not moved to suspend either man from the bench.

State pensions for common pleas judges are determined by length of service and average salary in their final years. Common pleas judges had an annual salary of $157,441 in 2008. Judge Ciavarella, as president judge, received an additional $1,000. Judge Conahan, as a senior judge, was paid about $500 per day when he handled cases, no more than 13 days per month, in addition to his pension. Judge Conahan could not make more money, pension and part-time hours combined, than any sitting common pleas judge.

According to Act 140 of the state Public Employee Pensions Forfeiture Act, Judge Conahan and Judge Ciavarella would lose their pensions if convicted of a felony committed through their public office, which they face according to federal charges.

So now your authority is a newspaper writer.

Who says he has it right ?

What a fucking tool you are. Try a lawyer for a change and not some third party shit!

A writer contradicts legal specifics and you take the writer's side to avoid being wrong?
Zimmie, just be a man and admit that you were mistaken on this point. It doesn't make all your other statements any less valid.
Their lack of validity is another issue completely.

Does anyone mind if I quote the Freak Brothers comics for a definitive statement on the pharmacological effect of amyl nitrate?

Please by all means do so.

The Freak Brothers are some of the leading internal stimulant advisors in the world.

Quote Hunter S Thompson. At least he was a "doctor."

zimmie is a stupid lying dummy.

The most utile pharmacological effect was when being chased by the fuzz and Fat Freddy sitting on the handlbars of your bicycle, Phineas opened a vial of little amyl nitrate and it allowed Phineas to outdistance The Man's cruiser with superhuman pedaling power.


Did you know that in Dublin, near the Temple Bar, there is a pizzeria called Fat Freddy's Pizza and there are Freak Bros. comics on every table?

:btu:

Where is his helmet?