There are new filings regarding Clare Bronfman.
She has asked for more time to respond to her Presentencing Report [PSR] because she has not yet seen the full “Victim Impact Statements”
At least one of three redacted filings filed last week appears to have something to do with “Victim Impact Statements”.
Clare will now have 14 days from the date she gets the “Victim Impact Statements” to respond to her PSR – and then the prosecution will probably get 7 days to reply.
The most interesting thing about these filings is that they confirm that Clare’s PSR contains information about “additional crimes” that Clare is alleged to have committed – which, of course, may make it hard for the NDNY to continue to sit on its hands with respect to Clare.
The letter from Clare’s attorney reads in part:
“We write to seek additional time to file defendant Bronfman’s objections to the PSR, which are currently due on January 9, 2020. The reason for the request is that defendant has not yet been provided with the complete “Victim Impact Statements,” which are included in part in the PSR.
“While the government has agreed to share the Victim Impact Statements in full with the defense, it has not done so yet because the government’s request (to which defendant Bronfman consents) for a protective order covering these victim statements is still pending…..
“Once the statements are provided, defendant will need sufficient time to investigate and address the allegations in the statements, including finding and providing any evidence necessary to correct any incorrect statements to Probation.
Thus, for the reasons described below, we respectfully request that our objections to the PSR be due fourteen days
after the Victim Impact Statements are provided in full to the defense.
“The PSR recites certain ‘additional crimes’ that are not part of the counts of conviction, and states that Victim Impact Statements were solicited from ‘additional Jane and John Does who were impacted by the defendant’s criminal conduct’ but who are not victims of the counts of conviction. PSR ¶ 116.
“Based on only the selected portions of victim statements included in the PSR, defendant cannot discern what the alleged crimes are that the victims are purportedly addressing, or in some cases the victims’ identities. Defendant needs this information in order to make any appropriate legal or factual objections to the inclusion of these statements and allegations in the PSR.
“In particular, defendant must correct any material misstatements in the Victim Impact Statements so that the Court has complete and accurate information at sentencing…..
“‘Due process requires that the defendant not be sentenced on the basis of materially false information, and he is thus
entitled to an effective opportunity to respond to the sentencing position advanced by the government, including an opportunity to review and comment upon the presentence report prepared by the probation office of the court…”
“In order to do so, defense counsel needs access to the complete victim statements and their identities and sufficient time to respond to the allegations therein. Defendant requests fourteen days in which to respond because addressing the allegations, many of which are new allegations not raised previously in the course of this litigation, will require defense counsel to search the extensive discovery materials for correspondence with the authors of the victim statements or other relevant information in order to identify any contradictory evidence that should be provided to Probation related to the allegations.
“Without knowing who the victims are or the full scope of their allegations, defendant is unable to do so before obtaining the statements.
“As noted above, the government does not dispute the defendant’s right to see the complete Victim Impact Statements including the identity of the victims, and will provide them once the Court rules on the proposed restrictions …
“For the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the date for filing her objections to the PSR be adjourned until 14 days after defendant is provided with the complete Victim Impact Statements.
“Kathleen E. Cassidy”
What this likely means is that victims have come forward alleging crimes that were not covered in Clare’s plea deal conviction. Or that the Probationer Officer who is preparing Clare’s PSR came across evidence of “additional crimes” from some other source.
Either way, it means that Clare’s PSR contains information about additional crimes that she is alleged to have committed above and beyond the ones she was charged with – and the ones to which she pleaded guilty.
The question is can a person be convicted of one crime and then, in effect, be sentenced for another crime – for a longer period – because the PSDR contains allegations of other crimes?
Where is due process?
Now, of course, Clare is guilty of many more crimes than she was charged with – but the notion that anyone can be sentenced for crimes she was not convicted of – because of mere allegations does not seem to be due process.
Of course, Clare deserves a longer sentence than the 21-27 months she thought she was going to get. But we do not wish to see due process abrogated for anyone.
What this means in her case is that Clare’s sentencing date may be pushed back beyond the presently scheduled February 14th date. It all depends on when she gets the full Victim Impact Statements.
What’s holding it up is an order concerning non-disclosure to the public of the victims’ names, etc.
If that gets done in a week – there is a chance sentencing might still occur on February 14th. But if you are planning to attend her sentencing – don’t buy your tickets yet.
My guess for sentencing is April 1.