“A Lack Of Judgment Shouldn’t Matter, Because The Offense Happened” – Teresa and Joe’s Sentencing, Part 2


Here’s what happened after the first part.

“What Happened First Regarding Joe: The Sentencing Part 2”

After Judge Salas said she had a number of concerns, Joe Giudice’s lawyer (Miles Feinstein) began to talk.

He detailed the following:

  • Joe stands in a different position from Teresa
  • Miles was concerned with Joe’s criminal history being a category 2, as Joe’s conviction falls within 10 years of the defendant’s commission of the offense. To this, Judge Salas claimed that since they didn’t have a judgment of the conviction, Joe should not be assessed on the criminal history point because she doesn’t have a judgment.
  • Miles brought up Joe’s DWI. Judge Salas made sure that Miles was not going to argue with this as it was an offense.

Next, a representative from the Government (who were the plaintiffs in this case) spoke. They claimed that a lack of judgment shouldn’t matter, because it’s admitted that the offense happened.

Overall, it was decided that Joe’s advisory guidelines for sentencing would be the following:

Total offense level: 21
Total potential prison time: 37-46 months

He would not be eligible for probation

Fines between $7,500-$75,000

~$425,000 in total assessment

* Stay tuned as we continue to detail yesterday’s sentencing *