The Chrisley's Sentencing Part II
The Bravo Docket
Cesie and Angela
4.7 • 2.6K Ratings
🗓️ 12 December 2022
⏱️ 44 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
Summary
In the second part of our coverage on Todd and Julie Chrisley's sentencing, we discuss their defenses to support why they should receive reduced (or no - in Julie's case), jail time, what their sentences were, and what happens next for them and their family.
As always, our podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with past or present employers, any organizations, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bar of New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri.
Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/thebravodocket.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Transcript
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
| 0:00.0 | In reality television, the people are represented by two separate but equally obsessed attorneys. |
| 0:06.4 | This is their podcast. |
| 0:18.8 | Hi, I'm Sessie, and I'm Angela, and this is the Bravo Docket. |
| 0:24.7 | All right, welcome back. This is our second part of the Chris Lee Sentencing episode. |
| 0:29.9 | We just left off reading the government's arguments for the sentence recommendation |
| 0:34.7 | that they provided to the judge, including some summary from trial testimony |
| 0:40.1 | to support the sentence that they recommended. |
| 0:42.9 | Now we're going to switch gears and read through Todd and Julie Chris Lee's arguments |
| 0:48.8 | in response or for their recommended sentence that they argue they should receive. |
| 0:54.3 | So I'll hand it off to you, Angela. |
| 0:56.8 | Real quick, thank you so much for being so patient with the terrible audio on my computer |
| 1:01.8 | while I was traveling. That was so nice. I'm so sorry, guys, but I just couldn't put my |
| 1:07.2 | expensive microphone and take it all the way to Mexico and the New York City and then |
| 1:11.0 | schlep it back to Austin. So thank you. I really appreciate that. All right, onto the episode. |
| 1:16.4 | So Todd requested a level 29 with 97 to 108 months, and he gave essentially three reasons via his |
| 1:25.1 | defense counsel for why he thought there should be a downward departure. |
| 1:29.6 | And the first one they put in there, they cite the sentencing guidelines and state that |
| 1:35.3 | a portion of the sentencing guidelines directs the court to consider when imposing a sentence |
| 1:39.6 | in need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have |
| 1:45.2 | been found guilty of similar conduct. And yeah, that seems reasonable. They're specifically |
| 1:50.8 | pointing out that their unindicted co-conspirator, Mark Braddock, has not and will not receive any |
| 1:57.2 | punishment for his orchestration of the bank fraud conspiracy and substantive offenses. |
... |
Please login to see the full transcript.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Cesie and Angela, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Cesie and Angela and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2026.