The Liberty City jury hung for a second time today. Judge Lenard will have a hearing next Wednesday to find out if the government will proceed a third time and if so, when that trial will be rescheduled. Lots of coverage from all the regulars.
I will re-post my questions from an earlier entry:
Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?
Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....
What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.
The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...
I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.
My prediction is that despite all of the above, the case will be tried a third time.
Finally, I feel for Judge Lenard. Can you imagine having to sit through the same lengthy trial 3 times. Shoot me now!
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
The Governemnt should try to save face by quitting now. Then, at least the Government could claim that it could have obtained convictions but decided not to continue because the case was too expensive to re-try.
ReplyDeleteIf Mr. Acosta believes so strongly in the case, that it should be tried a third time, then he should get in the courtroom and do it himself.
ReplyDeleteDon't give me that BS that it is D.C.'s call, ala Ben Khune - that is just passing the buck.
2:02
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to appreciate that the US Atty's job does not include trying cases himself...that is why they have assistants.
Jerk.
What's the big deal? Why can't the US Atty not try a case?
ReplyDeleteAny word on when they are starting up again?
ReplyDeleteWhy is 2:02 a jerk? Why is it so unreasonable to suggest that the U.S. Attorney try a case? Other U.S. Attorneys have tried cases.
ReplyDeleteGrow up.
4:42
ReplyDeleteName one. Acosta isn't a trial lawyer. Would it really be a wise use of his administrative authority to send in anything other than the office's best trial team on such an important case?
I strongly believe that two mistrials is proof that the state does not have enough evidence to prosecute these young men. Therefore if they do proceed with a third trial they should be released on bond. I personally knew two of the seven men that were originally arrested and this case disturbs me. The government is destroying the lives of these people who are only a few years out of high school. As far as I knew they were good kids. I'll always have faith in them and they are The prosecution has been unsuccessful at proving otherwise and no jury will be able to rule on this case. Free The Augustine Brothers
ReplyDeleteWhy can't Acosta try a case? The number of trials has nothing to do with a person's ability in the courtroom.
ReplyDeleteMelvin Beli was criticized for representing Jack Ruby because he was not a criminal trial lawyer. Think he couldn't try a case?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
ReplyDeletewhat? the bottom feeding cja lawyers appointed would be delighted to try the case again!! they have no private practice thats why they are on the cja wheel. duh. retained trial attorneys would have walked these defendants in the first trial. a ror release is mandated.
ReplyDelete11:20 you are a joke. There are 175 "bottom feeders" on the wheel?
ReplyDelete175 bottom feeders on the wheel take one down, pass it around. 174 botttom feeders on the ..................
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 kinds of lawyers on the CJA wheel, those who take an occasional appointment, and those who live off it.
ReplyDeleteNow define bottom feeders.
I would think its private defense lawyers who make their living from the government.
Accepting court appointments is an honorable thing. living off them is not.