Former juvenile court judge sentenced to 9 years prison
A former juvenile court judge was sentenced to nine years in prison and another 20 years of supervised release after pleading guilty to federal child pornography charges.
XXXXXXXXX, 39, resigned from his position in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court in early September and pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution of child pornography later that month. The former jurist appeared before a federal judge in a Madison courtroom Wednesday, Dec. 22, for a sentencing hearing.
Judge Peterson departed downward, slightly, from the calculations – noting the mandatory minimum for child pornography crimes aren’t based on historical decision-making and sentencing practices, compared to other crimes, but federal laws. Peterson said the guideline enhancement for using an electronic device essentially is a double count against a defendant, as virtually all present-day child pornography cases involve a computer device of some kind.
I read the sourced article which I had to pause a few times to think about how I felt. I think there court got this right based upon the decision, why and other comments that were made. They recognized the collateral damage caused to the judicial system because he was a sitting judge. I thought it was poor of him to say that as a closeted gay man and the pandemic. The judges was right in calling bs on that too. Not very often you will hear me agreeing with them. Pointing out that the second charge of using electronic device is basically redundant because that how all cp is distributed today. So he will go PC, get good time and be out in 5, then probation. I hope he is able to do the internal work and come out of this better than he went in.
Completely unfair sentence! Let me tell you why. For many years, federal judges have been applying the 2 point enhancement for “use of a computer” found in the sentenceing guidelines. My judge applied this 2 points against me a sentencing, which helped trigger lifetime supervision! Yet, the federal judge in this case said the application of that enhancement is “double counting” — the very same argument I made but my judge rejected. So, there is no consistency in federal sentencing despite all the rhetoric about the need for consistent sentences to prevent miscarriage of justice.
I would argue your sentence was more unfair than his.
Only 9 Years…WOW
And the Funny Thing Is That ‘He’ will only end up serving Half the Time Based on Good Behavior and Other Early-Release Enhancements; and Will Be Placed in Protected Custody, Receiving Daily Room Service
I, Met, ‘Others’, While on State Sponsored Vacation, and ‘THEY’ got Worse Sentences…I do not know anything about that ‘Stuff’, that, ‘They’ were convicted of, But All I ever gathered, was, that the Sentencing, on this ‘stuff’ is all over the map…there, never, seemed to be consistent Sentencing….It Seems like they ‘Throw the Legal Dart and See Where it Lands on the Dart Board’…Crime is Commerce!
SeasonEd Greetings!
TruthandScience, where do you get this information? He’s in the federal system, where you are required to serve 85% of your time. How can you say that he will only end up serving half the time? Even if he qualifies for RDAP, he doesn’t come close to half-off. It’s very damaging to make statements that lack any foundation. People will read this and think he is getting off easy by only doing half his sentence, when that’s not true.
And the article clearly states that the sentence “departed downward slightly” from guidelines while remaining well above mandatory minimum. Are people not reading this? How much more time do we want him to get?
FAC#3….this was the quote from the end of the aforementioned article
“In addition to the nine-year prison term – which could be nearly halved with time served and good behavior credit – Peterson ordered Blomme to enroll in alcohol abuse and sex offender treatment, pay $200 in a special assessment and a $5,000 sex trafficking assessment.”
I was just re-iterating what the article said….
SeasonED Greetings To All!
Thanks for pointing that out. The journalist was wrong.