want, in my lengthy opinion, for people to understand the inputs. this, i say, is what i m considering because i lay out in very detailed way, everything that people have argued in the cases and when i m doing my interpretation, i am focused on the text of any statute or constitutional provision. i am looking as appropriate to the intentions of the people who wrote the words because i view statutory interpretation, constitutional interpretation, those exercises consistent with my limited authority. i am conscious of not interpreting those texts consistent with what i believe the policy should be or what i think the outcome should be. i am trying in every case that involves that kind of
but it s not as if there s one set of guidelines that are federal sentencing guidelines and then there s the probation guidelines. the probation office is giving advice to the judge, it varies case by case. senator oh. it s not the same. sorry. i thought you were done. that s all right. let me ask you about a specific case. let s talk about i listened to these seven cases in which you had discretion, and you did not follow the prosecutor s recommendation or the sentencing guidelines but let s just talk about one of them because we ve talked about some of them as a group. let s talk about united states vs. hawkins, that s probably one you remember from 2013. the defendant there was wesley hawkins. he was 18 years old at the time. he uploaded five video files of child pornography from his computer to youtube. this is how the police got on to him. he then uploaded another 36 depictions of child porn and other lewd photos of children to his icloud account. when the police execu
have talked about the mold of particular justices they thought they followed in. so if you had to tell the american people who you re closest to, who s that justice or those justices? thank you for the question, senator, and i must admit that i don t really have a justice that i ve molded myself after or that i would. what i have is a record. i have 570 plus cases in which i have employed the methodology that i ve described and that shows people how i analyze cases. i, in every case, am proceeding neutrally from a neutral posture from, in every case. i describe thoroughly all of the arguments that are made in the case to me as a judge because i
he had been convicted of murder and rape. had been on death row for a number of years. i took the case because i was asked to do it and eventually, somewhat to my surprise, found in fact he had never done the crime of which he had been convicted. eventually, we won his freedom because the prosecutor in the case concealed evidence, which was a violation of his constitutional rights and he was a free man as a result. your husband, as a surgeon, saves lives. lawyers don t do it often, but i know from personal experience the importance of having a good
black man on death row in your home state of florida. he was convicted of murder and rape. he had been on death row for a number of years. and i took the case because i was asked to do it and eventually somewhat to my surprise found in fact that he had never done the crime of what she had been convicted. we won his freedom because the prosecutor in the case concealed evidence, which was a violation of his constitutional right. and he was a free man as a result. your husband as a surgeon saves lives. lawyers don t do it often.