That’s… confusing. I’m more confused why Terry was convicted of “intent to sell unspecified amount”, which didn’t carry a minimum sentence (and clearly he exceeded the minimum sentence of 5 years coz he’s still in prison 13 years later) so I think he had a shit lawyer.
-
-
-
The scotus ruling itself makes sense surface level only coz his “low level” crime was actually convicted as a high-ish level one?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.