Mr. Sloane’s lawyer, Nathan J. Hochman, argued that Mr. Sloane was “a good man who made a mistake.” Mr. Hochman said that William Singer, a college consultant at the center of the scandal, was a skilled manipulator who won Mr. Sloane’s trust after doing legitimate college preparation work with his son and then used that trust to persuade Mr. Sloane to cross an ethical and legal line.
In a brief statement to the judge, Mr. Sloane said that “there are no words to justify my behavior,” but that, deep down, he had wanted what was best for his son.
Judge Talwani, who will sentence most of the rest of the parents who have pleaded guilty in the case, many of them in the coming weeks, clearly seemed to view the bribery and athletic recruitment scheme that Mr. Sloane had taken part in as worse than test cheating.
When Mr. Sloane’s lawyer, Nathan J. Hochman, raised Ms. Huffman’s sentence as a point of comparison, Judge Talwani appeared taken aback.
“Are you suggesting that the two defendants — that their culpability is similar?” she asked.
Judge Talwani also suggested that Mr. Sloane’s involvement of his son in the fraud led her to impose a longer sentence. At one point, she questioned Mr. Sloane’s assertion that he had been driven by wanting to do what was best for his child.
“It’s not something that I’m looking at in sentencing, perhaps, but it’s something parents should be thinking about,” the judge said, “which is, are they doing that for their children or they doing that for their own status — or for their other goals that don’t have anything to do with their child?”
Perhaps most of all, Judge Talwani questioned whether Mr. Sloane had fully accepted responsibility for his crime. In a searing back-and-forth with Mr. Hochman, she expressed skepticism that the lawyer — and his client — really understood the impact of what had occurred.
