Huffman to be sentenced in ‘Varsity Blues’ case

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 08/09/2019 (2246 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

BOSTON — The U.S. Justice Department suffered a setback in June, when the first defendant sentenced in the country’s college admissions scandal, a former Stanford University sailing coach, avoided prison time.

Now, the prosecution has an opportunity to rebound as the historic “Varsity Blues” case enters a critical new phase.

Parents who have pleaded guilty to paying Rick Singer, the mastermind of a countrywide college admissions cheating and bribery scheme, are set to be sentenced beginning next week. Fifteen parents, three college coaches and two other co-conspirators of Singer are expected to be sentenced this fall.

First up is one of the two celebrities charged in the sweeping case: actor Felicity Huffman, whose sentencing is set for Sept. 13. In a deal with prosecutors, Huffman pleaded guilty in May to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and honest services mail fraud for paying Singer US$15,000 to have someone correct her daughter’s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) answers.

At the time of her plea, prosecutors recommended four months in prison for the Desperate Housewives actor, substantially lower than the maximum 20 years the charges could carry. They also recommended 12 months of supervised release, a US$20,000 fine and other undetermined amounts of restitution and forfeiture.

A stiff sentence that includes prison time — particularly for one of the highest-profile defendants in the case — could send the message prosecutors had hoped for with the sentencing of former Stanford sailing coach John Vandemoer.

Looking to “set the tone” out of the gate, prosecutors sought 13 months in prison for Vandemoer. He admitted taking US$610,000 in payments from Singer in exchange for designating applicants as sailing recruits to get them into the prestigious university.

If Huffman and the parents who follow her in court also avoid prison time, some criminal justice advocates say it would signal to the public that the rich and connected can get away with cheating the system.

“The criminal scheme carried out in this case shocks the conscience and underscores the way in which wealthy people can exploit their privileged status to their benefit and to the detriment of others,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “These federal crimes must not be treated lightly in order to send a strong message that no one is above the law and that wealthy people will be held accountable.”

Clarke said the crimes committed by parents in the case “undermine public confidence” in the college admissions process and show universities must “redouble their efforts” to ensure diversity on campuses. She noted most of the wealthy parents who participated in the scheme are white.

She called the case a “unique opportunity” to hold accountable individuals “who feel that money, race and privilege can allow them to evade the justice system.”

Of the 51 people charged in the college admissions scandal, 34 are parents accused of making significant payments to Singer’s sham non-profit, the Key Worldwide Foundation. Prosecutors say they paid to have someone secretly take American College Test (ACT) or SAT tests for their children, change poor results or get them falsely tagged as an athletic recruit to get them into college.

Huffman was originally scheduled to be the third parent sentenced in the case. But the sentencing hearings of two other parents who have pleaded guilty, Devin Sloane and Stephen Semprevivo, were pushed back to later this month.

Andrew Lelling, the U.S. district attorney for Massachusetts who is leading prosecution of the case, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the upcoming round of sentencing. Huffman’s lawyer, Martin Murphy, also declined to comment. He referred questions to a public-relations spokesperson, who did not respond to questions from USA Today.

Both sides are expected to file sentencing memos to the court that will make final arguments to U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ahead of next week’s hearings. They will include their final sentencing recommendations.

“If there isn’t at least a request for a strong sentence, even if it isn’t granted, then I think it would seem like there’s sort of different justice for different people,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, who specializes in federal courts. “There’s that concern.

“I do think they will continue to press,” he said of the prosecution, “and part of it is to make an example that everybody ought to be equal before law and this is not appropriate behaviour.”

Because no parents have been sentenced to date in the admissions scandal, Tobias said it’s tricky to predict what’s in store for Huffman and those sentenced after her.

“We’ll see what arguments are made and how her defence attorney frames it. That could be important,” he said. “And, if Huffman has more to say, that may account for something, too.”

Huffman, 56, has apologized to the “students who work hard every day to get into college.” She fought back tears when she pleaded guilty in court.

One fact that may play in her favour is the substantially lower amount of money she paid compared to other parent defendants. Singer typically charged parents US$15,000 to carry out the test-cheating, and higher amounts to pay off college coaches to get their children admitted as athletic recruits. The latter cost more because it guaranteed a child’s entry into college.

Sloane, CEO of Los Angeles-based waterTALENT, which builds water systems, pleaded guilty to paying US$250,000 in bribes to Singer’s organization to falsely designate his son as a water polo player so he could gain acceptance to the University of Southern California. Prosecutors have recommended he serve 15 to 21 months in prison.

Semprevivo, an executive at Cydcor, a privately held provider of outsourced sales teams, pleaded guilty to paying US$400,000 to Singer to get his son admitted into Georgetown University as a fake tennis recruit. Prosecutors have recommended a prison sentence of 18 months for him.

Through Singer’s scheme, Huffman’s daughter received a 1420 on her ACT after Mark Riddell, a counsellor at a private high school in Florida, secretly corrected answers on her exam at a testing centre in Los Angles. It marked a 400-point improvement from when the girl took the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) one year earlier without Riddell.

Prior to the December 2017 exam, Huffman’s daughter received extended time to take the exam — a common practice among Singer’s clients to help carry out the cheating. But Huffman has said the additional time was the result of her daughter’s therapy with a neuropsychiatrist.

The sentence for Vandemoer, the ex-Stanford sailing coach, was decided by U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel. She is presiding over Singer’s case but is not assigned to any of the cases involving parents or other coaches. Singer has pleaded guilty to four felonies and is co-operating with prosecutors.

Although prosecutors didn’t get the sentence they wanted for Vandemoer, the case is widely seen as an outlier that doesn’t necessarily foreshadow how the next round of sentences will go. As part of an agreement with prosecutors, Vandemoer pleaded guilty to racketeering charges.

The case also had unique circumstances. None of the students tied to the payments were admitted into Stanford as a direct result of the coach’s actions, leading Zobel to question whether the university suffered any losses. Vandemoer also funnelled payments directly to the school’s sailing program and did not pocket any of the bribe money he took from Singer.

Zobel called Vandemoer “probably the least culpable of all the defendants.”

Twenty-three defendants in the college admissions case, including Huffman, have pleaded guilty to felonies; 28 others have pleaded not guilty, including actor Lori Loughlin.

How the first group of parents is sentenced could affect whether other parents decide to plead guilty or dig in for trial, according to Adam Citron, a former state prosecutor in New York, who now practises at Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP.

That’s the biggest concern for prosecutors, he said.

“It could go two ways. If (the parents) are getting jail time even on pleas, a defendant may think to themselves, ‘I better plea out because I don’t want more jail time,’” Citron said. “By the same token, that defendant might say to themselves, ‘I’m going to get jail anyways, so I might as well fight it.’”

Although difficult to predict, Citron said the judge in Huffman’s case may be less lenient with parents like her than was the case with the Stanford coach, who did not benefit personally by accepting payments from Singer.

“They can make examples out of these people. Obviously, there’s not much sympathy with the one per cent-ers right now,” Citron said. “A judge may be less sympathetic to a big-time star who needed to get her child into college knowing what they were doing was wrong.”

— USA Today