The judge was clearly annoyed by arguments raised in letters submitted by Simels’ fellow lawyers suggesting he had been prosecuted because of his aggressive style, or that his tough talk about “eliminating” or “neutralizing” witnesses was taken out of context.

“You still haven’t held yourself accountable for your criminal acts. But you’re not required – I will,” Gleeson said. “These are such egregious crimes and you need to be punished for them.”

It would appear that whatever doubts remain amongst the criminal defense bar never entered into Judge Gleeson’s thoughts.  This may be because Judge Gleeson went from the United States Attorneys office straight to the bench, or because, having sat through the testimony, he’s firmly convinced that Simels meant it exactly as the government said.

If Bob Simels indeed planned to engage in bribery, or be complicit in the murder of witnesses against his client, then the sentence is not merely well-deserved, but perhaps even a bit soft for such a crime.  Criminal defense lawyers don’t do this, not for the best paying drug kingpin or for anybody else.  We defend.  We don’t murder.  We are criminal defense lawyers, not criminals.

But there is a bright spot to the hearing before Judge Gleeson.  At the time of conviction, there was very deep concern about Simels’ associate, Arienne Irving, who appeared to be merely swept along with the tide against Simels, and could not conceivably have had any say in what Simels was doing.  More evidence of the collateral damage that comes to lesser defendants who are tainted by the evidence against the primary defendant, where the jury is unable or unwilling to differentiate between the conduct of the defendants.

The good news is that Judge Gleeson recognized this and tossed Irving’s conviction for insufficient evidence.  It won’t give her back the year lost to this case, or the ruination of her legal career, but it beats spending 14 years in prison for working for someone who committed a crime.