Georgia State University Law Review Volume 27 Article 5 Issue 3 Spring 2011 3-1-2011 Judicial Sentencing Discretion Post-Booker: Are Judges Getting a Distorted View Through the Lens of Social Networking Sites? Christina R. Weatherford Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Christina R. Weatherford, Judicial Sentencing Discretion Post-Booker: Are Judges Getting a Distorted View Through the Lens of Social Networking Sites?, 27 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2011). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol27/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Weatherford: Judicial Sentencing Discretion Post-Booker: Are Judges Getting a JUDICIAL SENTENCING DISCRETION POST- BOOKER: ARE JUDGES GETTING A DISTORTED VIEW THROUGH THE LENS OF SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES? ∗ Christina R. Weatherford INTRODUCTION Jessica Binkerd, a graduate of the University of California, Santa Barbara,1 probably never imagined that pictures taken from her MySpace website would one day help send her to jail. Regrettably, that is exactly what happened. On August 6, 2006, Binkerd was driving her co-worker, twenty-five-year-old Alex Baer, home from a party when she swerved into oncoming traffic and collided with another car.2 Unfortunately, Baer did not survive the accident.3 Binkerd’s blood alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit.4 Binkerd was subsequently charged and convicted of vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence and driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury.5 In 2007, a Santa Barbara superior court judge disregarded the probation department’s recommendation of less than a one year jail sentence,6 opting instead to impose a much harsher penalty of five years and four months in state prison.7 Despite pleas for leniency from the victim’s family,8 ∗ J.D.