The Crow's Nest: Libby and One Federal Sentence

From SL & P: US News & World Report has this new piece discussing the preparation of Scooter Libby's presentence report. Here is how it starts:

Lewis "Scooter" Libby — the former top aide to Vice President Cheney who was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury, and lying to the FBI in March — will be a step closer to learning his fate next week, when the presentencing report for his case is due to be completed.

Libby's lawyers and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will get their hands on the report May 15, but the document will not be publicly released–not before Libby's June 5 sentencing nor after. The report will include a probation officer's calculation of what sentence Libby should receive under federal guidelines and a judgment on whether the case merits a different sentence. Lawyers on both sides can contest parts of the report, and the judge ultimately can depart from its findings, but it will serve as a kind of first draft of the eventual sentence.

Some Libby sentencing posts:

• First-cut Libby guideline calculations?
• More Libby sentencing speculation
• Comparing Lewis Libby and Victor Rita
• Could Libby's decision not to testify now result in an obstruction-of-justice enhancement?
• Sentencing and pardon politics in the Libby case
• Will VP Cheney help Libby at sentencing?

SEPARATELY: The Boston Globe published a lengthy article questioning the wisdom of using residency restrictions as a means to decrease sex crimes against children.

FURTHER: (Also from Sex Crimes blog)

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has made a ruling in the odd area of law concerned sex by fraud. Here is a media account of the ruling:

A woman who had sex with her boyfriend's brother in her darkened room late one night claimed she was raped, saying the man tricked her into the act by impersonating her boyfriend.

But Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court disagreed Thursday, citing a half-century-old state law that says it is not rape when consent to sexual intercourse is obtained through fraud or deceit.

The high court said the state's rape law defines rape as sexual intercourse compelled "by force and against (the) will" of the victim. The court cited a 1959 ruling it made in another case in which it found that fraud cannot be allowed to replace the force required under the law.

The SJC noted that the state Legislature has had "ample opportunity" to change the rape statute to include fraud or deceit, but has not done so.

"Fraudulently obtaining consent to sexual intercourse does not constitute rape as defined in our statute," the court said.