Lucianne.com links to an article which labels the campaign against Vermont's Judge Cashman and his 60 day sentence as a smear campaign resulting from bad reporting. Clearly some of the reporting was less thorough than it could have been, but the argument that probation was included as a condition really does little to address the short length of the sentence. And it appears that Judge Cashman isn't the defender of any extreme anti-punishment position. But there's something else in the new article that really has me curious about the prosecutor's role.
The report was incorrect in two major respects: the sentence the judge imposed and the statements he made about punishment. The defendant pled guilty to three crimes pursuant to an agreement that gave him the chance to withdraw his plea if he was sentenced to more than 90 days to serve. The crimes were two counts of aggravated sexual assault (based on admissions that the defendant had, over the course of four years starting when the child victim was 6 years old, licked the child’s vagina on multiple occasions and placed his penis in the child’s mouth at least once) and one count of lewd and lascivious conduct (based on an admission that the child had stroked his penis “quite a few times”). Judge Cashman imposed an incarcerative sentence of 60 days to 10 years to serve for the first count, a consecutive probationary sentence of 5 years to life on the second count and a consecutive probationary 2- to 5-year sentence on the third count. Thus the statement that the judge “sentenced him to just 60 days in prison” was incorrect.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no lawyer - but doesn't this basically imply that the prosecution cut a deal that meant the defendant couldn't get more than 90 days, so long as he pleaded guilty? In fairness to Judge Cashman, this deserves to be sorted out. And I doubt Bill O'Reilly will take the time to do it. No ratings in that, after all.
no, you're correct. Once O'Reilly starts a rant against someone, he doesn't let the facts get in the way!!Tell you what, I'm proud of Vermonters!! They totally stood up and didn't take O'Reilly's bullying and nonsense. Judge Cashman is well liked and well respected. You don't get rid of somebody because of one decision you don't like. That's ludicrous, but then again, so is O'Reilly!!!
Posted by: medicinegirl | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 02:45 PM
Seem there is alot more to this story than what is being reported:
http://burlingtonfreepress.com/assets/pdf/BT16071113.PDF
Posted by: dallasalley | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 03:11 PM
Dan, I had contact with a member of the victims family, and it wasn't a plea deal with the Prosecutor that got this punishment. They may want to imply that this is a smear campaign, but whatever hostile feelings people have for Cashman are of his own doing.
"Hulett, 34, pled guilty to sexually assaulting a friend's young daughter at least fifty times over a two year period, starting when the little girl was only seven.
The conviction on the charges of aggravated sex assault carry a potential life sentence, but Vermont District Court Judge Edward Cashman announced he is considering a prison sentence of no more than 90 days if Hulett qualifies for out-patient sex offender therapy.
The County Prosecutor opposes the Judge's proposal. They say Hulett should serve at least 8 years behind bars. "--- that's from back in August and the link to it can be found here http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=3752457&nav=4QcSdcS7
Posted by: L. | Friday, February 03, 2006 at 03:27 PM
yup, there is more to it than what was presented in the media...
Posted by: tester | Monday, February 06, 2006 at 11:30 AM