Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Ok, I will state right up front that I don't know much about Cunningham's case. I weigh in only as a lawyer that has handled many federal criminal defense cases.

When Cunningham cut his deal, it was likely to one or two counts that carried a maximum of 10 years. If the US sentencing guidelines (USSG) are followed, and they are now discretionary with the judge, not binding, he should receive some credit for "taking responsibility." Under the USSG, if his offense was a level 28 (and I have NO idea, I'm just making up numbers), and his criminal history score is a zero (likely the case), then the judge could reduce the level of the offense to level 25.

Also under the USSG is the possibility for a "downward departure" from the guidelines based on other factors, such as cooperation (that's called a "5K motion" if you hear it discussed on a chat show). I've seen as many as 7 levels deducted due to cooperation (i.e. the guy sang like a canary and other people got caught), and as few as 3 levels. In fact, I recently had a guy that was on the edges of a criminal enterprise. We went in to try to get a couple of levels knocked down by telling what we knew, but he didn't know anything the feds didn't already have, so he got NO reduction under 5K (we didn't really expect it).

Now the judge may decide not to follow the guidelines because of the notoriety of Cunningham and to send a clear message to other elected officials that at least in his court, you better not be doing what he was convicted of.