"Lynne Stewart's statements after her conviction and sentencing were protected by the first amendment and it was error to use them to enhance her punishment.
"...The primary issue raised by this appeal is the unfair enhancement of Ms. Stewart's sentence based on her speech to supporters and the press after her conviction and immediately after the original sentence was imposed.
"The cruel harvest of that speech--the increase of her sentence from 28 months to 10 years imprisonment--strikes at the heart of the First Amendment and is constitutionally intolerable...
"At resentencing, the judge had before him essentially the same materials that were presented at the earlier sentencing. And, because there had been no unaddressed deficiencies in the Court's first seentence, and there had been no significant changes in Ms. Stewart's circumstances, the defense urged that she was entitled to have the original sentence re-imposed.
"The government urged that she should be sentenced to prison for at least 15 years, in part because of the public statements after her conviction and original sentencing. The trial judge accepted the government's claims and used Lynne Stewart's words to enlarge her sentence from 28 months to ten years..."
What’s missing in this saga
5 hours ago