Connect with us

Arkansas

Riot suspects face dilemma on sentencing | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Published

on

Riot suspects face dilemma on sentencing | Arkansas Democrat Gazette


Hundreds of Donald Trump supporters charged with storming the U.S. Capitol have faced the same choice in the three years since the riot: either admit their guilt and accept the consequences or take their chances on a trial in hopes of securing a rare acquittal.

Those who have gambled — and lost — on a trial have received significantly longer prison sentences than those who took responsibility for joining the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, an Associated Press review of court records shows.

The AP’s analysis of Capitol riot sentencing data reinforces a firmly established tenet of the U.S. criminal justice system: Pleading guilty and cooperating with authorities carries a substantial benefit when it comes time for sentencing.

[TIMELINE: Arkansans swept up in Jan. 6 riot » arkansasonline.com/16timeline/]

Advertisement

“On one hand, the Constitution guarantees the accused a right to a jury trial. It’s a fundamental constitutional right. But the reality is that if you exercise that right … you’re likely to be punished more severely than you would have been had you [pleaded] guilty to the offense,” said Jimmy Gurule, a University of Notre Dame law professor and former federal prosecutor.

More than 700 defendants have pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the Jan. 6 riot, while over 150 others have opted for a trial decided by a judge or jury in Washington, D.C. It’s no surprise that most cases have ended in a plea deal — many rioters were captured on video inside the Capitol and later gloated about their actions on social media, making it difficult for their lawyers to mount much of a defense.

The average prison sentence for a Jan. 6 defendant who was convicted of a felony after a contested trial is roughly two years longer than those who pleaded guilty to a felony, according to the AP’s review of more than 1,200 cases. The data also show that rioters who pleaded guilty to misdemeanors were far less likely to get jail time than those who contested their misdemeanor charges at a trial.

Lawyers for some Jan. 6 defendants who went to trial have complained about what has long been described as a “trial tax”– a longer sentence imposed on those who refused to accept plea deals. A defense lawyer made that argument last year after a landmark trial for former leaders of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group convicted of seditious conspiracy.

A judge sentenced four ex-Proud Boys leaders to prison terms ranging from 15 to 22 years. Prosecutors had recommended prison terms ranging from 27 to 33 years for a plot to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.

Advertisement

After the sentencings, defense attorney Norm Pattis filed plea offers that prosecutors made before the Proud Boys went to trial. Prosecutors’ sentencing recommendations after the trial were three or four times higher than what they had estimated the defendants would face if they had pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy before the trial.

Prosecutors persuaded the judge to apply a “terrorism enhancement” that significantly increased the range of prison terms recommended under sentencing guidelines. Pattis argued that the government’s recommendations amounted to a trial tax that violated the Sixth Amendment.

“In effect, the defendants were punished because they demanded their right to trial,” he wrote.

In the federal court system overall, nearly 98% of convictions in the year that ended Sept. 30 were the result of a guilty plea, according to data collected by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Few criminal cases make it to a jury because defendants have a powerful incentive to plead guilty and spare the government from spending time and limited resources on a trial.

But advocates for change have long complained that plea bargaining is unfairly coercive and can even push people who are innocent to take a deal out of fear of a lengthy prison sentence if they take their chances at trial.

Advertisement

As of Jan. 1, at least 157 defendants have been sentenced after pleading guilty to felony charges for serious crimes related to the Capitol riot. They received an average prison sentence of approximately two years and five months, according to the AP’s data.

At least 68 riot defendants have been convicted of a felony after trials with contested facts. They have been sentenced to an average of approximately four years and three months behind bars.

The AP’s comparison excludes 10 sentences for seditious conspiracy convictions because nobody who pleaded guilty to the same charge has been sentenced yet. The analysis also excludes convictions from more than a dozen “stipulated bench trials,” in which the judge decided the cases based on facts that both sides agreed to before the trial started.

The gap is similarly wide for a subset of felony cases in which a Capitol rioter was convicted of assault. The average prison sentence for 83 rioters who pleaded guilty to an assault charge was approximately three years and five months. The average prison sentence for 28 rioters convicted of an assault charge at trial was roughly six years and one month.

The trend also applies to misdemeanor cases against Capitol rioters who didn’t engage in violent or destructive behavior. Of 467 riot defendants who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, more than half avoided jail time. Meanwhile, judges handed down terms of imprisonment to 22 of 23 defendants who went to trial and were convicted only of misdemeanors.

Advertisement

After the first trial for a Jan. 6 case, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich sentenced a Texas man to more than seven years in prison after a jury convicted him of storming the Capitol with a holstered handgun, helmet and body armor. Prosecutors had recommended a 15-year prison sentence for Guy Reffitt, but before the trial, prosecutors presented him with a possible plea deal that would have recommended less than five years in prison.

Reffitt’s attorney, F. Clinton Broden, said in a court filing that the government’s 15-year recommendation “makes a mockery of the criminal justice system.”

“One of the things when we talk about our democracy and our Constitution is this idea that you have a right to go to trial. You’re not sentenced to three times as high of a sentence if you go to trial,” Broden said during the hearing, according to a transcript.

Justice Department prosecutor Jeffrey Nestler told the judge that the government wasn’t seeking “a trial penalty in any stretch of the imagination,” adding, “It’s because of the defendant’s conduct here.”

The judge said Reffitt’s sentencing guideline range would have been roughly two years lower if he had accepted responsibility early and pleaded guilty.

Advertisement

“There’s a cost for going to trial, and the guidelines make pretty clear what that cost is,” Friedrich said.

The risks of going to trial also are illustrated by the case against Dr. Simone Gold, a leading figure in the anti-vaccine movement. Gold entered the Capitol with John Strand, a boyfriend who worked for a group that Gold founded.

Both were charged with the same crimes. Gold pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Strand went to trial and was convicted of five charges, including a felony obstruction charge.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper sentenced Gold to two months in prison and sentenced Strand to two years and eight months behind bars. Prosecutors had sought a prison sentence of six years and six months in prison for Strand.

Strand’s lawyer, Stephen Brennwald, questioned why the government’s sentencing recommendation for Strand was nearly 40 times longer than Gold’s prison sentence. Strand was following Gold’s lead on Jan. 6, the attorney argued.

Advertisement

“It would stand to reason that Mr. Strand should receive a lesser sentence. After all, they both engaged in exactly the same conduct that day, though Dr. Gold was the reason that both of them went into the Capitol,” Brennwald wrote in court papers.

The judge told Strand that he wasn’t getting a trial penalty for exercising his constitutional rights. Unlike Gold, Strand didn’t get credit for accepting responsibility for his conduct on Jan. 6.

“And to the contrary, you’ve not accepted responsibility in a pretty remarkable way. You have professed not just that the government didn’t prove its case, but you have professed your innocence numerous times,” Cooper said, according to a transcript.

FLORIDA ARRESTS

The FBI arrested three Florida residents on Saturday, the third anniversary of their alleged attack on Capitol police officers during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot.

Advertisement

Jonathan D. Pollock, 24; his sister, Olivia M. Pollock, 33; and Joseph D. Hutchinson, 27, were arrested at a ranch in Groveland, Fla., and will be arraigned Monday, the FBI said in a statement. Groveland is about 30 miles west of Orlando and about 45 miles north of their Lakeland homes.

They had been indicted in April 2021. Jonathan Pollock had gone into hiding shortly after the riot. His sister and Hutchinson had been arrested in June 2021 and released on bond, but fled shortly before they were set to go on trial in Washington, D.C., last March.

According to a 53-page indictment, Jonathan Pollock and Hutchinson are on video recordings repeatedly punching officers during the riots. Pollock is also alleged to have grabbed riot shields from officers, and he and Hutchinson are accused of using the edge of one to strike an officer in the neck or face.

Olivia Pollock is charged with punching and elbowing an officer and trying to grab officers’ batons.

All are charged with assaulting officers, violent entry into the Capitol and other felonies. Court records do not list any attorneys for the three.

Advertisement

No one returned a phone message left Saturday at Rapture Guns & Knives, the Lakeland store owned by the Pollock family and where Hutchinson once worked.

In June 2021, the Pollocks’ brother, Gabriel, defended his siblings and Hutchinson in an interview with The Ledger, Lakeland’s newspaper.

“I do feel like it is a political move that’s being perpetrated, which — it’s sad,” Gabriel Pollock told the paper. “It’s not how the country should be run … with everything going on in the country, I think people are pretty fed up with the way the country’s being taken away from the people.”

Information for this article was contributed by Michael Kunzelman, Alanna Durkin Richer and Terry Spencer of The Associated Press.



Source link

Advertisement

Arkansas

Arkansas’ 2026 schedule unveiled

Published

on

Arkansas’ 2026 schedule unveiled



FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. – Arkansas will open the Ryan Silverfield era at home on Sept. 5 against North Alabama as part of a home schedule that features seven home games, including five Southeastern Conference games as part of the league’s first-ever, nine-game conference slate.

Advertisement

The Razorbacks open the season inside Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium against North Alabama on Sept. 5. Coach Silverfield will coach his first game as the Head Hog in the program’s first-ever meeting with Lions. Another program first awaits the following week with a trip to Utah (Sept. 12) for the first football game between the two schools. The road game at Utah will be the Hogs’ third at a Big 12 opponent in five seasons following trips to BYU in 2022 and Oklahoma State in 2024.

Arkansas returns home to Fayetteville for back-to-back games with its first Southeastern Conference game of the season against Georgia on Sept. 19. The Bulldogs’ visit to Razorback Stadium will be the team’s first since 2020 when the two teams squared off in the season opener. Arkansas’ final non-conference game of the season is set for Sept. 26 vs. Tulsa. The matchup will be the 74th in a series that dates back to 1899.

A three-game stretch to start October features games at Texas A&M (Oct. 3) and at Vanderbilt (Oct. 17) with a home game against Tennessee (Oct. 10) in between. The trip to Texas A&M will be Arkansas’ first since 2020 and the trip to Vanderbilt will be the first for the Razorbacks since 2011 and mark just the 11th meeting all time between the two programs. Despite joining the SEC in 1992, the Hogs and the Commodores have played just seven times with only three coming in Nashville.

Arkansas’ bye week is set for Oct. 24 before wrapping up the month with a home game against Missouri (Oct. 31). The Battle Line Rivalry moves up the schedule from its traditional final game slot for the first time since Mizzou joined the league. The Razorbacks and Tigers have closed every regular season – except the pandemic-shortened schedule in 2020 – against each other since 2014.

November begins with a trip to Auburn (Nov. 7) before closing the season at home in two of the final three regular season games. South Carolina makes the trip to Fayetteville on Nov. 14 for the first time since 2022. A return trip to Texas (Nov. 21) serves as the final road game on the slate. The Battle for the Golden Boot returns to its regular season finale position on the schedule on Nov. 28. Arkansas and LSU battled on the final weekend of the regular season from 1992 when the Hogs joined the SEC through the 2013 season.

Advertisement

Football season ticket renewals will take place from January 20 through March 31. New season tickets can be purchased by clicking here. All new season ticket purchasers will have the opportunity to relocate their season ticket locations during Razorback Seat Selection in April. Additional season ticket inventory will be made available following the seat selection process.

2026 Arkansas Football Schedule
Date – Opponent
Sept. 5 North Alabama
Sept. 12 at Utah
Sept. 19 Georgia*
Sept. 26 Tulsa
Oct. 3 at Texas A&M*
Oct. 10 Tennessee*
Oct. 17 at Vanderbilt*
Oct. 24 Bye
Oct. 31 Missouri*
Nov. 7 at Auburn*
Nov. 14 South Carolina*
Nov. 21 at Texas*
Nov. 28 LSU*
*Southeastern Conference game



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Arkansas

Arkansas Educational Television Commission disaffiliates from PBS | Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Published

on

Arkansas Educational Television Commission disaffiliates from PBS | Arkansas Democrat Gazette


Bill Bowden

bbowden@nwaonline.com

Bill Bowden covers a variety of news for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, primarily in Northwest Arkansas. He has worked at the newspaper for 16 years and previously worked for both the Arkansas Democrat and Arkansas Gazette.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Arkansas

Artificial intelligence “explosion” has changed the accounting industry in Arkansas

Published

on

Artificial intelligence “explosion” has changed the accounting industry in Arkansas


Accounting firms in Arkansas are aggressively adopting artificial intelligence tools. The field is among the most impacted by the AI boom because it is so data-centered.

“All the accounting firms, you know, medium size to large firms that I’ve been talking to, they have incorporated AI to some extent,” said Dr. Gaurav Kumar, a professor of accounting at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Artificial intelligence can do in an instant work that used to take accountants many hours.

Landmark CPAs is at the forefront of the industry’s shift to AI in Arkansas and says the technology has all but eliminated the need for entry-level accountants to punch in numbers for W-2s and 1099s.

Advertisement

“Being able to use software that can auto-populate, can read documents and populate that into the return for us has really made a big difference,” said Rocky Goodman, a tax partner at Landmark.

And it’s the same with audits—AI can look for discrepancies and verify cash payments at lightning speed.

“It’s going to do it like that, whereas it used to take a staff maybe five to 10 hours,” said Michael Pierce, a Landmark audit partner.

And contrary to fears, Landmark says AI isn’t costing accountants jobs but plugging a gap created by a workforce shortage in the industry.

The advantages of AI are clear, but it also demands investment in cybersecurity and ensuring data privacy.

Advertisement

“One of the concerns is privacy. So, you know, if the staff is using personal AI tools, client data could be exposed. So firms must provide kind of secure, enterprise-grade AI options and clear policies,” Kumar told KATV.

Landmark plays it safe and uses enterprise-level AI tools.

“Our IT department obviously spends a lot of time researching to ensure that we don’t have any issues with client information being included in the learning modules that are building out these AIs,” Pierce told KATV.

Another concern is that, despite its rapid growth, AI is not infallible.

“AI can still produce incorrect or sometimes made-up information it can automate tasks, but it cannot replace judgment, ethics, or the ability to interpret complex tax laws or business scenarios,” Kumar said. “So, you know, that’s where a professional CPA, professional accountants, come in—review is essential.”

Advertisement

For that reason, and because data input is no longer a burden, Landmark is hiring CPAs for more of an analytical role.

“It does take a different skill set for someone than it did prior to the AI explosion,” Goodman told KATV.

But AI is reshaping the accounting industry in other ways as well.

“It’s also another challenge because AI is reducing the number of hours it takes to do a work, and traditionally accounting firms have always billed their clients on an hourly basis. So now AI is kind of pressuring firms to shift away from hourly billing and move more towards value pricing and subscription based advisory. So it’s kind of like they have to change their whole model,” Kumar told KATV.

Another factor is the cost of AI—like other firms, Landmark has had to spend a lot of money to stay competitive in its rapidly changing industry.

Advertisement

There is immense pressure to adopt AI, and it’s not limited to accounting firms.

“I’ve been seeing that companies in Central Arkansas are eager to move forward, but they’re trying to do it judiciously,” said Marla Johnson, tech entrepreneur-in-residence at UALR.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending