Federal Sentencing Attorney Benson Weintraub's Articles: Published and Cited

HOME • SITEMAP

PRACTICE AREAS
Federal Defense
State Defense

ATTORNEY PROFILES
Robert Malove
Benson Weintraub

RESOURCES
Current News
FAQ
Links

CONTACT
Directions
Contact Us

Board Certified Expert in Criminal Law by the Florida BAR

benson weintraub's articles: published and cited

profile • news and quotable • education

The Feeney Frenzy: A Case Study in Actions and Reactions in the Politics of
Sentencing, 16 FED. SENTENCING REP. 114 (Dec. 2003)(with Benedict P. Kuehne), cited with approval in

United States v. Peralta-Espinosa, 383 F.Supp.2d. 1101, n. 2 (E.D. Wis. 2005);

M. Darmer, The Federal Sentencing Guidelines After Blakely and Booker: The Limits of Congressional Tolerance and Greater Role of Juries, 56 S.C. L.. REV. 533, n. 8 (2005).

Douglas A. Kelly, Minnesota Federal Judge Caught in a Constitutional Crossfire, 27 HAMLINE L. REV. 427 (2004).

Hidden Disparity Under the Sentencing Guidelines, 9 FED. SENTENCING REP. 148 (1991), cited in:

Hon. Jose A. Cabranes & Kate Stith, FEAR OF JUDGING: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts, Univ. of Chicago Press (1998)

Note, The American College of Trial Lawyers Proposed Modifications to the Relevant Conduct Provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 38 AM. CRIM. L. REV.1463 (2001)

Defense Advocacy Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, FEDERAL PROBATION (Administrative Office of US Courts)(1989), cited in:

Ronald F. Wright, Sentencers, Bureaucrats, and the Administrative Law Perspective on the Federal Sentencing Commission, 79 CAL. L. REV. 1 (1991)

Note, An Argument for Confrontation Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 105 HARV. L. REV. 1880 (1992)

Douglas A. Berman, (Symposium: Legal Issues and Sociological Consequences of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines), From Lawlessness to Too Much Law? Exploring the Risk of Disparity From Differences in Defense Counsel Under Guidelines Sentencing, 87 IOWA L. REV. 435 (2002)

Yale Law Journal Sentencing Symposium: Conference Summary (Benson Weintraub), 101 YALE L.J. 2053 (1992), cited in:

Cynthia Kwei Yung Lee, Prosecutorial Discretion, Substantial Assistance and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 42 UCLA L. REV. 105 (1994)

Douglas A. Berman, A Common Law for this Age of Federal Sentencing: The Opportunity and Need for Judicial Law Making, 11 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV. 93 (1999)

105 HARV. L. REV. 1880, supra (Notes for the Yale Law School Sentencing Symposium 6 (unpublished manuscript, on file at the Harvard Law School library)

Douglas A. Berman, Balanced and Purposeful Departures: Fixing a Jurisprudence That Undermines Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 76 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 21 (2000)

The Role of Defense Counsel at Sentencing, FEDERAL PROBATION (1987), Reprinted in

Kittrie, Zenoff & Eng, SANCTIONS, SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS—POLICY & PRACTICE, Thomson-West (University Casebook Series)(2002).;

Cited in Megan E. Burns, The Presentence Interview and the Right to Counsel: A Critical Stage Under the Federal Sentencing Structure, 34 WM & MARY L. REV. 527 (1993)

Federal Sentencing for Organizations: You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet, THE CHAMPION (NACDL) (1992)(with Alan J. Chaset) cited in:

Sentencing the CEO:Personal Liability of Corporate Executives For Environmental Crimes, 5 TULANE ENV. L. REV. 635 (1992)

New Guidelines For Sentencing Corporations, TRIAL (AATL) (1992)(with Alan J. Chaset)(adapted from THE CHAMPTION, supra) cited in:

Shayne Kennedy, Probation and the Failure to Optimally Deter Corporate Misconduct, 71 S. CAL. L. REV. 1075 (1998)

Richard I. Werder, A Critical Assessment of Intracorporate Loss Shifting After Prosecutions Based on Corporate Wrongdoing, 18 DEL. J. CORP. L. 35 (1993)

Charles J. Walsh & Alissa Pyrich, Corporate Compliance Programs as a Defense To Criminal Liability: Can a Corporation Save its Soul?, 47 RUTGERS L. REV. 605 (1995)

NOTICE: Nothing contained in this site is intended to constitute or provide any legal advice of any kind whatsoever or to create an attorney-client relationship of any kind and should not be relied on in making any decisions regarding your legal rights. Each case is factually and legally unique and consultation with an experienced white collar defense attorney is essential to properly evaluate and assess a particular person or company's unique situation. The results obtained depend on the facts of each case.