White Collar Talks: The Mitigation Revolution — Federal Sentencing Mitigation with Joseph De Gregorio bölümünün tam dökümü

article opens with the line there is a verdict rendered before the judge ever speaks. 00:05:47.279 --> 00:05:49.120 What do you mean by that? 00:05:50.560 --> 00:05:57.920 I mean that conduct starts answering important questions before the defendant reaches the courtroom. 00:05:58.160 --> 00:06:07.120 It gives the court something to examine when the person says, I understand the harm, or my judgment has changed. 00:06:09.759 --> 00:06:12.879 I studied federal judges. 00:06:13.040 --> 00:06:21.439 For instance, Judge Cynthia Bassant explained that she began developing a tentative sentence while reviewing the written materials before the hearing. 00:06:21.680 --> 00:06:27.199 Judge Brian Jackson described beginning that thinking when he received the pre-sentence report. 00:06:27.360 --> 00:06:34.879 So those observations resonated with me early and made the preparation, made the early preparation consequential. 00:06:35.040 --> 00:06:48.319 And if the court first encounters a detailed offense record and an incomplete personal record, counsel has important work to do while the information is still being assembled and evaluated. 00:06:48.959 --> 00:06:52.000 But tentative is the essential word. 00:06:52.720 --> 00:07:01.040 Judge Amit Ahmetta also explained that advocacy at the hearing could sway could sway him. 00:07:01.279 --> 00:07:11.439 But my practical point is that a lawyer can explain six months of changed conduct, but cannot create the six months that never happened. 00:07:11.759 --> 00:07:23.680 We need time to see whether the person has begun repairing harm, what he's done to make amends, addressing the causes of the conduct, and accepting meaningful oversight. 00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:29.120 Then the hearing becomes a place to examine that work and answer the court's questions. 00:07:29.439 --> 00:07:35.439 The written record and the live conversation should strengthen each other. 00:07:35.759 --> 00:07:43.279 The verdict language is a metaphor, and that actual sentence belongs to the judge after considering the case. 00:07:43.439 --> 00:07:50.079 Our responsibility is to make the factual foundation worthy of that decision. 00:07:51.279 --> 00:07:56.959 You mentioned that the judge uh has a tentative, right? 00:07:57.040 --> 00:07:59.680 When the judge comes out for sentencing, but it's a tentative. 00:07:59.759 --> 00:08:06.560 And and um that premise was actually confirmed at the Southeast White Color Crime Conference. 00:08:06.720 --> 00:08:13.920 Um, Joe and Brian, the chairs of the conference, had a fantastic panel of district court judges. 00:08:14.160 --> 00:08:18.399 And that's exactly what they said to the audience at the conference. 00:08:18.480 --> 00:08:27.120 Then um they have an idea of what they want to do, but they they are very interested as to what's going to happen in the courtroom. 00:08:27.360 --> 00:08:49.200 And um I I think I think that echoes and confirms what what you're saying, that um there's a lot a lot that can

be done um by the defendant that that has to get communicated by the lawyer, but um it's not the lawyer's water to carry entirely. 00:08:49.360 --> 00:08:59.679 And and I think uh when you write that uh that judges professionally discount advocacy, that's kind of what you're alluding to in part. 00:08:59.840 --> 00:09:00.799 Isn't that right? 00:09:00.879 --> 00:09:09.519 Um character letters, sure, they're great, but what the court really wants to hear is what have you done for me lately? 00:09:10.639 --> 00:09:17.519 Yes, because the offense is often described in facts while the person is described in adjectives. 00:09:17.759 --> 00:09:30.399 And a court may have transactions, dates, communications, and identified losses on one side and generous, devoted, and deeply sorry on the other side. 00:09:30.559 --> 00:09:35.039 Those descriptions may be sincere, they still need substance. 00:09:35.360 --> 00:09:44.000 Um, Judge Ralph Erickson said a memorable instruction tell me something your client your client did when no one was keeping score. 00:09:44.159 --> 00:09:53.360 Uh Judge Judge Rakoff uh here in New York similarly emphasized specific little-known good deeds over the sheer volume of letters. 00:09:53.600 --> 00:09:59.840 And that's a demanding standard because it asks what someone actually observed. 00:10:00.320 --> 00:10:08.960 A neighbor who describes years of practical help may tell the court more than a prominent person who offers general praise. 00:10:10.399 --> 00:10:12.879 The same discipline applies to rehabilitation. 00:10:13.039 --> 00:10:21.919 Enrollment establishes enrollment, um completion establishes completion, change behavior is further claimed that needs its own support. 00:10:22.159 --> 00:10:24.639 We also have to acknowledge timing, honestly. 00:10:24.879 --> 00:10:30.480 Conduct before the investigation and conduct after the arrest tells different parts of the story. 00:10:30.720 --> 00:10:36.240 And most importantly, humanizing someone cannot mean making the harm disappear. 00:10:36.399 --> 00:10:41.840 It needs to understand both what this person did and what else is true about their life. 00:10:42.159 --> 00:10:48.639 My point is not that character letters fail or that judges disregard advocacy. 00:10:48.799 --> 00:10:54.159 It's that useful advocacy gives the court something specific to evaluate. 00:10:54.240 --> 00:10:59.039 And the human record deserves the same factual rigor as the offense record. 00:11:00.480 --> 00:11:04.240 Yeah, those are very profound thoughts. 00:11:04.559 --> 00:11:05.360 Well said. 00:11:06.320 --> 00:11:11.279 Um making me think I've got a couple of sentencings coming up. 00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:15.360 Um, which is exactly what you're supposed to do, make us think. 00:11:15.679 --> 00:11:20.080 Let's uh let's pop to the PSR for a second. 00:11:20.240 --> 00:11:26.480 Uh you uh refer to it in your article as uh, and I quote you, the Bible of the federal system. 00:11:27.200 --> 00:11:27.679 Why? 00:11:27.840 --> 00:11:29.279 What does that mean? 00:11:30.559 --> 00:11:38.639 I learned its importance by watching the same document matter to different people at different stages of my own case. 00:11:38.879 --> 00:11:48.159 When I wrote the personal narrative to the judge, and it got attached to my pre-sentence report, and my lawyer helped get it included with my pre-sentence report. 00:11:48.320 --> 00:11:53.360 At sentencing, my judge referred to my work in early restitution. 00:11:53.600 --> 00:12:03.679 Later, when you surrender to prison around the 30-day mark, you have a very important call to team meeting where you meet your case manager for the first time and they read the PSR. 00:12:03.759 --> 00:12:05.360 That's all that they have in front of them. 00:12:05.519 --> 00:12:15.039 And after my case manager was done reading, um, she brought up how I started paying restitution before sentencing. 00:12:15.360 --> 00:12:28.639 Because you have to enroll in the financial responsibility program in prison if you have a restitution and they take a certain amount out of whatever you have, you know, they tell you$50 a month or 100, whatever they come up with. 00:12:28.879 --> 00:12:42.879 And then when I had during my transition to the halfway house to home confinement, a staff member connected the account in my personal narrative after reading my PSR about how I met my wife. 00:12:43.120 --> 00:12:53.200 So different people noticed different parts of the same record, and you never know what's going to stand out to a stakeholder that holds sway over your freedom. 00:12:53.360 --> 00:13:01.440 And that taught me how far a personal history can travel without the person being there to explain it. 00:13:01.759 --> 00:13:10.720 Judge Justin Quackenbush encouraged counsel to provide favorable information to probation even before the interview. 00:13:10.960 --> 00:13:27.360 Judge Walter Rice emphasized correcting erroneous uh statements even when they don't affect the guideline calculation, because those statements can follow the person into prison and after supervised release. 00:13:27.519 --> 00:13:31.200 So that makes accuracy and timing equally important. 00:13:31.600 --> 00:13:47.679 And assembling the records, establish a coherent chronological timeline, and prepare the person to answer truthfully, have counsel direct the submissions, protect legal rights, and review the draft for errors. 00:13:47.919 --> 00:13:52.000 Probation independently investigates and evaluates the information. 00:13:53.039 --> 00:13:57.840 The probation report that gets created from the interview, the judge relies heavily on. 00:13:58.240 --> 00:14:06.799 And it's the purpose is to help that process with facts, and that can be checked. 00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:17.039 So my own narrative included what was included was valuable in my case, attaching it as a request, it's not an automatic write. 00:14:17.120 --> 00:14:28.399 The the larger lesson is that the

report has a life beyond the hearing, and give its accuracy the attention that lasting influence deserves. 00:14:29.440 --> 00:14:38.240 We've covered a little bit of ground uh today, and uh I thought I might jump in, Nana, and ask a couple of questions of our guest. 00:14:38.559 --> 00:14:42.159 And uh these go this goes back to my reading the article. 00:14:42.240 --> 00:14:53.279 And the uh in the article, you lay out, Joseph, a five-phase framework uh from the pre-interview narrative protocol through what you call the evolving narrative. 00:14:53.440 --> 00:14:58.879 Uh, can you take us through what how that actually works on a real case, if you don't mind? 00:15:00.320 --> 00:15:04.240 The five phases organize a practical task. 00:15:04.559 --> 00:15:12.080 Do you connect an honest account of the person to relevant action and evidence of follow-through? 00:15:12.320 --> 00:15:15.679 First, the pre-the pre-interview narrative protocol. 00:15:16.240 --> 00:15:19.840 We work through the history, the choices, the harm. 00:15:20.080 --> 00:15:23.200 The steps begin taken now. 00:15:23.840 --> 00:15:30.639 We begin gathering records, and counsel determines what should be submitted before the interview. 00:15:30.879 --> 00:15:39.440 And second is taking the floor with counsel's guidance after the officers, with the officer's permission, after they're done asking you questions. 00:15:39.600 --> 00:15:48.159 The person explains their accountability and responsibility and their work in their own voice. 00:15:48.399 --> 00:15:53.600 They need to understand the account well enough to answer questions about it. 00:15:53.840 --> 00:16:06.399 Third is the compliance rebuild framework that I came up with after studying with the University of Pennsylvania regulatory compliance and how the DOJ holds corporations' account into these seven pillars. 00:16:06.639 --> 00:16:10.879 And I just said, what if we map it to a human being? 00:16:11.120 --> 00:16:23.840 And it's it's what enabled the conduct, what now addresses those failures in a hypothetical, let's say, financial case, independent transaction review may be relevant. 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:25.200 Who performs it? 00:16:25.440 --> 00:16:27.360 What authority do they have? 00:16:27.600 --> 00:16:30.559 What happens when a concern appears? 00:16:31.039 --> 00:16:33.519 Fourth is the ESG framework. 00:16:33.759 --> 00:16:40.000 That's after studying that, it's it's environment, social responsibility, and governance. 00:16:40.159 --> 00:16:48.320 And I use those categories to examine the person's daily setting, responsibility they have to others, and actual oversight. 00:16:48.960 --> 00:16:53.519 The labels earn their place only if they produce concrete answers. 00:16:53.919 --> 00:16:56.159 Fifth is the evolving narrative. 00:16:56.399 --> 00:17:10.799 Whatever got submitted into the personal uh to the pre-sentence report, you have to update it for the sentencing memoranda and keep the record current as the

work continues, including difficulties and setbacks. 00:17:10.960 --> 00:17:16.799 Um, a proposal made months ago needs to be tested against what happened afterward. 00:17:17.119 --> 00:17:23.359 And uh Judge uh James Mahan's interview captures the underlying need. 00:17:23.519 --> 00:17:29.839 He said, give give the court a rehabilitation plan tailored to the individual. 00:17:30.079 --> 00:17:39.920 An available treatment provider, a realistic work arrangement, or functioning oversight gives counsel something more useful than an abstract promise. 00:17:40.160 --> 00:17:48.720 Can we explain the problem, show what addresses it, and establish whether the plan is actually being carried out? 00:17:51.839 --> 00:18:10.960 Um so much and so much in that uh series of comments you just made uh that are more fully developed in the article, of course, but I wanted to talk with you about another aspect of the article, if I could, Joseph, uh this uh during our interview today with you. 00:18:11.119 --> 00:18:14.640 And this is the verification standard uh that you talk about. 00:18:14.799 --> 00:18:21.119 You write that every claim change needs a date, an act, and a verifier. 00:18:21.359 --> 00:18:26.079 And why is why is that standard non-negotiable? 00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:32.240 And what happens when uh one of these three is missing, Joseph? 00:18:34.079 --> 00:18:38.799 A date, an act, and verifier makes a claim testable. 00:18:39.119 --> 00:18:40.799 Then we need a fourth question. 00:18:40.960 --> 00:18:43.519 What does the evidence actually establish? 00:18:43.759 --> 00:18:46.240 Restitution is a good example. 00:18:46.720 --> 00:18:54.240 Judge Neil uh Wake once said that even$25 a month is going to demonstrate a commitment to rehabilitation. 00:18:54.880 --> 00:19:02.880 Another judge said, I'd rather have 50 people who are going to write a character reference letter contribute$50 towards restitution. 00:19:03.279 --> 00:19:13.200 Judge uh Wolfe said uh he was skeptical about what repayment established about the defendant when a wealthy family supplied the money. 00:19:13.440 --> 00:19:17.599 Those observations just make context essential. 00:19:17.839 --> 00:19:21.279 A payment record can establish that money was paid. 00:19:21.440 --> 00:19:31.039 Understanding its significance requires knowing whose money it was, what effort it involved, what else the person has done. 00:19:31.440 --> 00:19:34.319 The amount alone cannot answer those questions. 00:19:34.480 --> 00:19:36.160 The same applies to oversight. 00:19:36.240 --> 00:19:47.759 If someone says they have an accountability partner, identify what and when that arrangement began, what the person reviews, and what do they do when they find a problem. 00:19:48.160 --> 00:19:52.480 You know, a title is not proof that supervision is functioning. 00:19:52.880 --> 00:20:02.640 If a piece is missing, identify the gap, seek support when it exists, and describe what remains self-reported. 00:20:03.119 --> 00:20:07.599 We cannot fill a missing fact with a stronger adjective. 00:20:08.079 --> 00:20:15.920 So the point is to make the record useful to counsel, probation, the government, and the court. 00:20:16.319 --> 00:20:21.279 They make they may reach different conclusions about its weight. 00:20:21.599 --> 00:20:27.359 They should be able to identify the underlying facts and the limits of what those facts prove. 00:20:27.920 --> 00:20:31.200 This is how I understand credibility. 00:20:31.680 --> 00:20:38.799 Make the claim precise, support it honestly, and leave the judgment to the people responsible for making it. 00:20:39.279 --> 00:20:40.319 Thank you very much. 00:20:40.480 --> 00:20:47.759 Um I wanted to talk about um some of my cases with you right now, and I'm not going to do that. 00:20:48.000 --> 00:21:00.319 I'm going to resist temptation because I think it's important that um people that and I think they can reach you after this podcast if they're listening. 00:21:00.480 --> 00:21:03.039 You know, this this there's so much more to Joseph D. 00:21:03.200 --> 00:21:07.200 Gregorio than we can can put into this podcast. 00:21:07.359 --> 00:21:14.640 But I wanted to say um I don't I think it's never too late to uh try to transition in life. 00:21:14.720 --> 00:21:40.480 And I think one of the things that I've seen recently, in a case I'm familiar with, is that um the individual in question who's under scrutiny uh has been uh proactive in trying to uh make whole again uh people that um uh that invested money with him and he he he he invested it poorly and in a misguided way. 00:21:40.559 --> 00:21:43.599 And so they there's some exposure that he has criminally. 00:21:43.759 --> 00:21:45.680 But anyway, timing. 00:21:45.839 --> 00:21:53.200 What is your thought about timing before I transition back to Nina on some other really important questions for us as lawyers? 00:21:53.359 --> 00:22:05.680 It is it is it should you should you with counsel, of course, you should start you should be About being preemptive because you talked about the corporate guidelines and mitigation. 00:22:06.799 --> 00:22:11.519 My question's a little diffuse, but I was wondering about timing. 00:22:13.279 --> 00:22:29.440 Well, timing matters, and it just, you know, of course, if for instance, a case I worked on that I wrote for Bloomberg last year was about how this individual was in therapy 14 months prior. 00:22:29.599 --> 00:22:37.200 He enrolled in college credits that he gave up on 20 years ago and completed over 20 college credits. 00:22:37.599 --> 00:22:40.480 But documenting it well is very, very important. 00:22:40.960 --> 00:22:44.880 Really, details and not broad stroking things is very important. 00:22:45.440 --> 00:22:51.759 And the individual really has to be willing to put up the work, put in the work and maximize every 24 hours. 00:22:51.920 --> 00:22:58.480 If their eyes are open for 20 hours a day and they're sleeping, let's say

four hours a night, what are you doing to maximize every day? 00:22:58.720 --> 00:23:03.680 Because leading into sentencing is truly to me like an hourglass. 00:23:03.759 --> 00:23:08.720 You flip over on your desk, and at first the sand doesn't look like it's going through. 00:23:09.039 --> 00:23:16.559 And the last funnel of sand goes very quickly, and before you know it, you're at sentencing, and you don't want to have any regret versus preparation. 00:23:16.720 --> 00:23:18.319 And it speeds up a little bit. 00:23:18.559 --> 00:23:20.079 It speeds up a lot, in fact. 00:23:20.240 --> 00:23:30.319 At first, you feel like you suspend it in time leading up to sentencing, but you don't want to say to yourself, Oh, I wish I had another few months, or I wish I had another six months. 00:23:30.799 --> 00:23:33.200 You don't you have to leave it all out on the table. 00:23:33.359 --> 00:23:40.319 And whatever you get at sentencing, you have to accept you've done what you've done, and you have to uh you have to pay for it. 00:23:41.039 --> 00:23:42.079 Thank you, Joseph. 00:23:42.240 --> 00:23:45.119 Uh Nina, I'll turn it back to you. 00:23:46.000 --> 00:24:01.920 Yeah, I mean, I guess what we all struggle with as attorneys is um, you know, we we don't want our client to sound scripted, we don't want the whole sentencing process to sound scripted. 00:24:02.319 --> 00:24:06.079 Um what's your what's your thought on that? 00:24:06.400 --> 00:24:07.839 How do you walk that line? 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:19.039 I mean, you want to be prepared, you want to do everything, but you don't want to sound like, you know, you're shoveling a whole bunch of stuff at the judge that is all, you know, choreographed. 00:24:21.200 --> 00:24:30.079 The line is whether preparation improves the truthfulness and clarity of the account or creates an impression the facts can't support. 00:24:31.680 --> 00:24:39.440 People may need notes, practice or help organizing a difficult chronological timeline, which is very important. 00:24:39.680 --> 00:24:43.440 They still have to understand and own what they are saying and what they did. 00:24:43.680 --> 00:24:51.839 If someone can recite a paragraph that they cannot explain when the question changes, we need to return to the substance of it. 00:24:52.799 --> 00:24:56.640 Judge John Levy made a particularly useful distinction. 00:24:56.720 --> 00:25:02.640 I studied, he would not hold poor communication skills against the defendant. 00:25:03.119 --> 00:25:09.119 And an eloquent presentation could still be insincere. 00:25:09.359 --> 00:25:18.799 So that that should make us very careful about treating fluency and you know, treating fluency as evidence of change. 00:25:18.960 --> 00:25:31.599 I, you know, I want to know what the person understands about the harm, what they've done to, you know, to understand that, and whether the account holds together when someone asks an unexpected question. 00:25:32.160 --> 00:25:38.559 So mixed motives deserve an honest answer, and of course, defendants want a better outcome. 00:25:38.799 --> 00:25:41.279 And you still have to evaluate the work. 00:25:41.440 --> 00:25:43.279 Does treatment address a real need? 00:25:43.440 --> 00:25:46.640 Does oversight exercise real authority? 00:25:46.960 --> 00:25:51.359 And does repair benefit people that were harmed? 00:25:51.599 --> 00:25:54.880 There was also a question that should survive the sentencing hearing. 00:25:55.039 --> 00:25:59.839 Will the person continue doing this when no one is preparing a memoranda about it? 00:26:00.079 --> 00:26:03.599 And that is the standard I want the preparation to meet. 00:26:03.759 --> 00:26:19.200 The person communic, you know, help the person communicate that clearly, but make sure the conduct carries the weight and a compelling account should remain true when the wording changes. 00:26:21.599 --> 00:26:29.519 Yeah, it sounds like the bottom line is be truthful, be authentic, um, at the end of the day. 00:26:29.759 --> 00:26:38.240 And you raise a super important point, which is, you know, and that that's always what the judge wants to know. 00:26:38.400 --> 00:26:42.960 Is this all just for me now, or is this really who the person is going forward? 00:26:43.200 --> 00:26:52.400 And if I understand you correctly, Joseph, it absolutely must be who this is, who this is, the who the person is going forward. 00:26:52.480 --> 00:26:55.920 Because if it's not, it's just a a sham. 00:26:56.720 --> 00:27:10.400 Um Joseph, one thing tell us one thing that every attorney listening to this podcast uh should do differently. 00:27:10.799 --> 00:27:18.960 Uh after, you know, based on based on you know your knowledge and your research and what you what you bring to us here. 00:27:21.440 --> 00:27:27.920 Begin developing a theory of the sentence while there is still time to test it against the facts. 00:27:28.400 --> 00:27:37.599 Judge John Levy explained that a sentencing recommendation needs a connection to the facts in the record and and sounds reasons. 00:27:38.000 --> 00:27:47.519 Um Judge Paul Azionis emphasized that the facts tied to the statutory facts and an explanation of why a variance is justified. 00:27:47.839 --> 00:27:53.519 That means the practical task is larger than collecting favorable material. 00:27:54.079 --> 00:28:05.119 Ask what sentence is counsel requesting, why it would meet the person, why would it meet the purposes of sentencing and what evidence supports the reasoning? 00:28:05.440 --> 00:28:11.440 Then build a working chronological timeline around the questions that matter. 00:28:11.680 --> 00:28:20.640 What harm is being addressed, what has changed, who observed it, what what needs still remain, and who's going to follow through? 00:28:20.880 --> 00:28:25.519 If the financial decisions are the concern, examine the oversight. 00:28:25.759 --> 00:28:31.200 If treatment is relevant, identify the provider and the actual progress of that.

00:28:31.359 --> 00:28:42.559 If a family member depends on the client, document the responsibility and available alternatives, make a plan that the custom tailored suit that fits the case. 00:28:42.720 --> 00:28:47.279 You know, assign someone to keep the record current and review it with counsel. 00:28:47.599 --> 00:28:56.400 That may reveal that a proposed supervisor has never met with the client or that a promised job is not available. 00:28:56.640 --> 00:29:01.519 Finding that early gives the team time to address it honestly. 00:29:12.640 --> 00:29:29.680 And he said, You know, Your Honor, I would I'm going to hire him, you know, as soon as you know he's done with his sentence, and I'm this is his role, and this is, and it's like little things like that to create as many clusters of mitigation to overshadow the government's bolder version of the person. 00:29:30.319 --> 00:29:45.119 And by filling, you know, by the filing deadline, counsel should have both an organized record and a reasoned explanation of its significance, respect the court schedule and allow for meaningful review. 00:29:45.519 --> 00:29:57.759 The immediate change is is this make factual developing uh developing that factual timeline and very, very structured. 00:29:57.920 --> 00:30:03.039 A proposed sentence needs a reason, and the reason needs a record. 00:30:06.160 --> 00:30:06.799 Yeah. 00:30:07.200 --> 00:30:25.519 Um the government, you know, and certainly in the white-collar cases that Joe and I handle, the government uh spends their sentencing briefs arguing the facts of the offense, the offense conduct, and we spend our sentencing brief arguing the nature and circumstances. 00:30:25.680 --> 00:30:32.799 Not no, the government focuses on the nature and circumstances of the offense, and we focus on the history and the characteristics of the defendant. 00:30:33.119 --> 00:30:50.799 And what I'm hearing you say is sure, you can talk a lot about this person, but it's really the evidence that supports those character traits uh and those historical um experiences or events that carry the ball. 00:30:51.119 --> 00:31:02.480 Tell me what from your article, The Mitigation Revolution, which I can't emphasize enough to our listeners, they should read. 00:31:02.720 --> 00:31:05.279 Uh what's your favorite line? 00:31:05.440 --> 00:31:07.599 What's your favorite thing that you say? 00:31:11.279 --> 00:31:14.640 Uh make the record worthy of the decision. 00:31:15.599 --> 00:31:22.559 Like the line I would I I would leave listeners with is make the record worthy of the decision. 00:31:22.720 --> 00:31:25.119 That's the discipline underneath the article. 00:31:25.599 --> 00:31:27.440 Understand understand the harm. 00:31:27.680 --> 00:31:36.000 Do the work of repair and change, document it accurately, give the court a reasoned basis to evaluate the request. 00:31:37.599 --> 00:31:46.319 My own experience taught me how much it matters when people make consequential decisions that you can help them understand the person in front of them. 00:31:46.559 --> 00:31:50.079 Just give them information they can trust and use. 00:31:53.599 --> 00:32:03.920 And one more thing the principle that guides my work is to shape institutional understanding before institutions make institutional decisions. 00:32:04.240 --> 00:32:14.160 That means beginning early, making the work real and remaining answerable for it after sentencing and for the rest of your life. 00:32:17.680 --> 00:32:24.640 Sounds like in large part that's the key, the the going forward in in a lot of respects. 00:32:25.200 --> 00:32:26.319 Uh Joe? 00:32:27.119 --> 00:32:31.759 Thank you, Nina, and uh Joseph, thank you so much for today. 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:34.799 We we learn, we always learn a lot from you. 00:32:35.039 --> 00:32:48.240 And I wanted to say one thing that jumps into my mind is many friends are have uh had the honor of being appointed to serve on the federal bench, uh, Nina the same, uh I'm sure. 00:32:48.640 --> 00:32:57.039 And what most of them tell me is the most difficult thing they do in their job is dealing with sentencing. 00:32:57.519 --> 00:33:04.240 And uh some of them actually decide that they've had enough and they decide to shorten their time on the bench. 00:33:04.400 --> 00:33:43.279 And if uh it just seems to me that this approach, uh, if more lawyers adopted it, uh, would be one way of uh triaging, if you want to use that word, this this issue of judges departing the bench or judges finding this to be the most challenging and difficult thing they do, if lawyers on both sides, prosecutors and defense counsel, uh go to the effort of presenting to the court uh this uh mosaic, if you will, picture of an individual who is being sentenced. 00:33:43.440 --> 00:34:08.320 And uh in that way, I not that uh any judges maybe lose sleep at night, but when they do when they do sentence someone to long and lengthy sentences as prescribed by the guidelines, this might be uh an avenue, if presented effectively as you describe it, for clients to um have a sentence that's somewhat mitigated. 00:34:08.480 --> 00:34:29.760 So uh anyway, I I I it's an aspect of things that we're not really taught as lawyers because um I'm I'm looking and at Nina Marino on this podcast and thinking, well, she's she's the premier advocate that I'd want to hire to represent me in a situation where I'm in some difficulty. 00:34:30.159 --> 00:34:35.519 But maybe the court's not always looking to the advocate, they're looking to the client. 00:34:35.599 --> 00:34:39.599 And so your publication really is worth reading. 00:34:39.840 --> 00:34:41.519 Nina, that's all I have. 00:34:42.719 --> 00:34:46.239 Joseph, thank you so much for being on our podcast. 00:34:46.480 --> 00:34:48.639 It's been an absolute pleasure. 00:34:49.519 --> 00:34:50.880 Thank you, Joseph. 00:34:51.440 --> 00:34:53.119 Thank you, Carmen, Nina and Joe. 00:34:53.199 --> 00:34:54.079 It's an honor to be here. 00:34:54.159 --> 00:34:55.199 Thank you so much. 00:34:56.719 --> 00:35:02.800 Well, uh you have been listening to White Collar Talks with Nina and Joe. 00:35:03.360 --> 00:35:04.960 And uh signing off. 00:35:05.119 --> 00:35:05.920 Thanks, everybody.