As the sentencing guidelines for child pornography crimes have grown increasingly harsh, a strong trend has developed among federal judges to reject the proposed prison terms as draconian. Now two influential federal appellate courts — the 2nd and 3rd Circuits — have joined the trend and declared that the child pornography guidelines are seriously flawed, or at least that a trial judge wouldn’t be wrong for thinking so.

Here is a related link from SL&P. While not precisely on point I read United States v. Nerad in the context of some push back on what’s to be punished and how severely.

Initially the case was sent back because appellant’s case was decided before his counsel submitted a brief, and because the chief judge on his panel had made some public comments relating to the case.

This time the case goes back because the chief judge also recommended his temporary successor for the Roach case, thus violating the principal that a recused judge should have no further contact with the case.

CAAF found appellant’s sentence disparity argument mooted by having the case returned to AFCCA on the first issue.

CAAF found appellant’s appellate discovery issue about the communications between the chief judge and appellate government moot.

CAAF found appellant’s post-trial speedy review issue in which he claimed malicious delay did not satisfy Barker.