The trial featured testimony from a range of well-known figures and public officials, underscoring the visibility of the case and the seriousness with which the court viewed the allegations.
According to filings from federal prosecutors, sentencing guidelines recommended a far harsher penalty. They argued that Michel’s actions demonstrated a disregard for campaign finance safeguards designed to maintain transparency and fairness in the electoral process.
Michel’s defense team strongly disagreed with the recommended range. Attorney Peter Zeidenberg described the final sentence as disproportionate and confirmed that the artist intends to appeal both the conviction and the length of the sentence.
In earlier filings, the defense argued that the sentencing guidelines in this instance produced unusually high recommendations that did not align with comparable nonviolent cases.
Continue reading…
