Judge Locks Up Psychic Scammer Jaycee Wasso, Bans Her from Fortune Telling

TL;DR

Defendant receives a prison sentence of nine and a half years, followed by 15 years of probation, for engaging in a two-year fraud scheme involving hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Transcript

first the Court's going to address the grounds for departure one by one all right we have under 921.0026 sub two um defense has requested a downward departure under subsection C that Ms Wassa was not of the capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of the conduct and her ability to conform that conduct of the requirements of law was substantially ... Read More

Key Insights

• ❓ The court acknowledges the defendant's abusive relationship but emphasizes that the fraud started before she met her partner.
• 🥡 The court highlights that the defendant took advantage of the victim's generosity and trust, causing significant financial harm.
• 😑 The court expresses hope that the victim does not let this incident deter him from continuing to give back to the community.

Questions & Answers

Q: Why did the court deny the defendant's request for a downward departure based on diminished capacity?

The court believed that the defendant knew right from wrong and did not find evidence that her capacity to appreciate the criminal nature of her conduct was impaired.

Q: Was the defendant's request for the need for payment of restitution to the victim to outweigh the need for a prison sentence granted?

No, the court ordered the defendant to pay $146,347 in restitution to the victim, considering the victim's financial status and the fact that the majority of the restitution had already been paid by co-defendants.

Q: Did the court find that the defendant acted under extreme duress or under the domination of another person?

No, the court determined that there was no evidence to support the claim that the defendant's actions were due to extreme duress or under the control of another person.

Q: Was the defendant's attempt to cooperate with the state considered as a ground for departure?

The court did not find the defendant's attempt to cooperate with the state as a valid ground for departure, as there were issues of minimization and deception in the defendant's statements.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The court denies the defendant's request for a downward departure based on diminished capacity and impaired ability to conform to the law.

• The court finds that the need for restitution to the victim outweighs the need for a prison sentence and orders the defendant to pay $146,347 in restitution.

• The court determines that the defendant's actions were not due to extreme duress or under the domination of another person.