Sentencing of Oleanvine Pickering-Maynard further pushed to March 28, 2024
Pickering-Maynard, who testified against Mr Fahie in his trial in which he was found guilty of drug and money laundering conspiracy charges earlier this month, was initially scheduled to be sentenced on August 21, 2023, then January 22, 2024, before the date was subsequently pushed back to February 22, 2024.
New sentencing date for Pickering-Maynard
A Miami federal court has since announced that the sentencing of Pickering-Maynard will now be done on March 28, 2024.
Kadeem S. Maynard, the son of Pickering-Maynard, was sentenced on November 20, 2023, to serve 57 months in prison after he too pleaded guilty last year to a single count of conspiracy to import cocaine.
Mr Fahie is scheduled to be sentenced on April 29, 2024; however, the guilty verdict for Mr Fahie has since been thrown into question after two jurors changed their minds about their decision.
US District Judge Kathleen Williams has since said she wants both sides—federal prosecutors and defense attorneys who are at loggerheads—to return to her courtroom on March 7, 2024, with a potential legal solution to the seemingly intractable problem.
.png)
Follow Us On
23 Responses to “Sentencing of Oleanvine Pickering-Maynard further pushed to March 28, 2024”
“Losing sides in a trial are not allowed to challenge a verdict by arguing it resulted from compromise, mistake, or carelessness, according to court records.
“The government maintains that Rule 606 and Eleventh Circuit precedent demand that the jury’s verdict remain respected and undisturbed, whether or not defendant opts to file a motion for a new trial or mistrial based on post-verdict, post-polling, and post-discharge juror statements. There is no “clear, strong, substantial and incontrovertible” evidence or reason to believe that the jury ever considered extraneous prejudicial information, experienced outside influence, made a mistake on the verdict form, or relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict the defendant,” prosecutors told the court.
Should the court deem it necessary, any further polling of the jury should be addressed to the foreperson rather than the two complaining jurors, prosecutors said.
Should the foreperson respond that the verdict form does not contain any mistakes, the court should end its inquiry and the jury’s verdict must remain respected and undisturbed.
Importantly, consistent with Rule 606(b), the government believes the court should refrain from asking the foreperson how the jury arrived at its verdict or whether certain jurors were displeased with the verdict, as this is expressly barred by Eleventh Circuit precedent as inquiry into purely internal matters,” they continued.
The court should also not inquire directly of any other jurors about whether the verdict form contains any mistakes because each juror already, under oath, told the Court that the published verdict was — in fact — their verdict. A juror’s subsequent recantation, dissatisfaction, or anger with the deliberation process or the outcome cannot be the basis for impeaching a verdict.”
What do you mean ‘ her four year sentence’?
She hasn’t been sentenced as yet so no one knows until she is what the sentence will be. Furthermore, do you think based on her role, she would draw lesser jail time than her son?
LOL!!! Did not know that the judge needed evidence for sentencing?
Any thing written and not correct is a mistrial. Even the date