Friday, February 13, 2009

Breaking -- Judge Cooke dismisses case against Ben Kuehne's co-defendant for Speedy Trial violation

In a 13-page Order, Judge Cooke has dismissed the case against Gloria Florez Velez, the lead defendant in the Ben Kuehne case for a violation of her speedy trial rights. Henry Bell represents Ms. Velez. More to follow...

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Henry Bell, baby.

Anonymous said...

This judge will find someway to dump the case, whether she is right or wrong. Academically speaking, it's the latter. If the judge wants to pick and choose which cases the government should prosecute, she should become the US Attorney and get off the bench. Justice confused, whatever side, is justice denied.

Anonymous said...

Always nice to see the AUSA's commenting here, making it clear that any decision against them is wrong. Judges should just do what the government wants, eh?

Anonymous said...

Really 8:41. They have a rule and you cry when it is enforced? Go to state court and take a look at a real speedy trial rule with teeth and then you will know the power of the constitution as it is meant to be enforced.

Anonymous said...

neat-o AUSA quote: "justice confused is justice denied." that does not even make sense. How about "US attorney - full of sour grapes and a sore loser - speaks, and stupid sh*% comes out."

Ed Williams said...

I think the 8:41 a.m. AUSA (?) was making the point that the judge is incorrect in her ruling as a matter of scholarship. If so, I probably agree. The pre-indictment delay is a bit overstated in its legal significance. Guess we will wait until the 11th speaks. G to appeal I am sure. Unless, they actually welcome this because she is secretly cooperating?

David Oscar Markus said...

How can you agree Ed if you haven't read the Order? The dismissal was for post-indictment delay, not pre-indictment.

Ed Williams said...

I read the order last night. I will reread it DOM, out of respect for your scholarship, but I do believe the pre-indictment period bears on the judge's rationale for dismissal. Her analysis of that is with what I (and I think the 11th will also) take issue.

Ed Williams said...

BTW, I am not Judge Zloch. I read before I rule. (Said with respect).

Anonymous said...

Judge Cooke issued a beautifully written order on this issue. You should definitely check it out. It is thorough and goes through each of the factors. The government may not appeal as she calls portions of the case frivilous. Perhaps the new guys at DOJ will take a close look at the case now and say enough is enough.

Anonymous said...

This thread is proof positive that Ed Williams is a bufoon.

val said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Ed, usually I am calling you an asshole. But, I am pissed seeing these jerkoffs give you shit. Screw them all. Being mistaken does not make you stupid. k

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ed Williams (yes the real one) said...

I REREAD THE ORDER. MY COMMENTS STAND.

IF YOU ALL ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE JUDGE ZLOCH RETORT, NOT MY PROBLEM.

I AM NEITHER WRONG NOR STUPID, EVEN THOUGH I WENT TO THE OTHER LAW SCHOOL. I JUST READ MORE CAREFULLY THAN THOSE HIGH ON THEMSELVES. LUCKY FOR THEM MEDIOCRITY RULES NOW AND HAS FOR YEARS.

BEN K IS A NICE FELLOW AND A DECENT LAWYER, BUT "TRULY ... EXCEPTIONAL?" IF YOU MEAN ONLY IN THE WAY HE IS HANDLING HIS UNDESERVED CIRCUMSTANCES, I AGREE.

NOW THAT MY FEELINGS ARE TRULY AND EXCEPTIONALLY HURT, I WONT BORE THE BLOG WITH MY PRESENCE AGAIN. I STICK WITH BLOGS ON FLY FISHING AND TOPLESS COEDS.

Anonymous said...

"Beautifully written" it is not. For example, the first footnote refers to Defendant Velez as the "Plaintiff," and the order refers to delayed as "dealyed" at Page 13. And no page numbers on the order? Anyway, the order is far from beautifully written. The problem is that the government did itself no favors rushing to get an indictment in October 2005, sealing it, and then pursuing additional evidence. Why rush to indictment, especially when you know Doggett is out there on post-indictment delay?

I believe Judge Cooke trying to bootstrap the 10-month pre-indictment delay to try to make the post-indictment delay appear more aggregious is stretching it a bit thin -- kind of like when the government argued (according to her order) that Velez's 5-month delay in filing her motion to dismiss significantly contributed to delay.

The real question now is will the government seek 11th Circuit review? A decision has to be made whether the likelihood of reversing Cooke is worth the risk of potentially creating additional case law on the ability to combine pre- and post- delay in the manner used by Cooke. Drum rollllll . . .

Anonymous said...

Reagrdless of your opinion of the Kuenhe case or Judge Cooke's Order, the gratuitous and offensive cheap shots about Judge Seitz are misguided and unfair demonstrations of ignorance. Whether you agree or disagree with her rulings and decisions, if you have ever practiced before Judge Seitz, you will know that she is well-versed in the law, gives every litigant a fair trial, and truly cares deeply about doing what she believes is just and fair.

David Oscar Markus said...

I deleted the offensive comment.

Bill Matthewman said...

7:03 p.m, I agree with you. I don't think it is fair for an "anonymous" poster to take a cheap shot at a Judge, especially Jdg. Seitz. I tried a fairly lengthy high profile case in front of Jdg Seitz against Curt Miner and Ed Stamm, and she gave both sides a very fair trial. And she kept control of the courtroom in a friendly and professional manner. As a defense lawyer, you can't ask for more than that.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well Mr. Matthewman, it's nice to know you can make time to kiss up to Judge Seitz on the blog. If only that would also work in your ability to represent your clients effectively.