A plea deal prosecutors offered to ex-Oxford includes jail time, the Valley Independent Sentinel has learned.
Just how much time Karen Guillet could spend behind bars isn’t known.
Guillet is charged with first-degree larceny and six counts of first-degree forgery after allegedly stealing $240,000 from taxpayers.
If convicted on all counts and given the maximum sentence possible, Guillet could theoretically face 80 years in prison.
However, prosecutors offered Guillet a plea agreement July 18. The details of the agreement are not public, but several sources told the Valley Indy it involves jail, in addition to restitution.
Guillet is scheduled to either reject or accept the offer July 31, during her next appearance in Superior Court in Milford.
Guillet’s lawyer, Dominick Thomas, declined to comment Wednesday, saying he couldn’t violate the confidentiality of plea discussions in a judge’s chambers.
“I’m sure there are people out there speculating,” he said.
State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor also declined to comment on the case Thursday.
Plea Bargains In General
Plea deals give a defendant the opportunity to plead to fewer or reduced charges — and get a lighter sentence.
In return, the state is spared the expense and time of proving the charges at trial.
But just how much of a discount prosecutors would give Guillet for contrition is unclear.
On the one hand, she has no prior criminal convictions in the state, according to a search of Judicial Branch records.
And her alleged thefts are non-violent offenses. Also, any restitution she’ll be able to offer the town would help her case.
On the other hand, the scale of the alleged theft is somewhat staggering — especially since the town, in a separate, civil lawsuit, believes the amount Guillet took is closer to $600,000.
And prosecutors would likely take a dim view of the fact that Guillet was an elected official who allegedly used her position to loot town coffers for personal gain.
That balancing act, if the plea deal does go forward, would be explored in a “pre-sentence investigation,” a lengthy, secret document compiled by a probation official that delves into a defendant’s background and circumstances of his or her offense.
‘Not A Slap On The Wrist’
And it’s at that point — the sentencing — that the town will be heard, First Selectman George Temple said Wednesday.
“That’s when it’s our turn to stand up and tell the court where we’re coming from,” he said.
Temple praised State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor and Judge Richard Arnold Wednesday for their handling of the case.
“We have a very qualified judge and a very qualified state’s attorney,” Temple said. “I’ve got a lot of faith in them and I intend to have my two cents put in as spokesman for the town.”
Temple said he’s been told details of the offer Lawlor made to Guillet last week but wouldn’t disclose them.
“I know, but I’m not prepared to release that information now,” he said. “I think it would be improper.”
But then he added, “It’s not a slap on the wrist.”
Typically, plea bargains in large-scale larcenies where restitution is a possibility result in prison sentences that are suspended after offenders serve a portion of them, with a period of probation afterward during which they’d have to work on paying back the stolen money.
Not doing so would expose such defendants to violation of probation charges, and the possibility of serving the portion of their prison sentences that were originally suspended.
