1. John Pacenti covers the Kaley case going to the Supreme Court:
On the 50th anniversary of its landmark Gideon ruling giving all
criminal defendants access to a lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a
South Florida case asking whether defendants are entitled to hire the
counsel of their choice when federal prosecutors freeze their assets
before trial.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 1963 case
of Clarence Gideon, who received a five-year sentence for a pool room
theft in Panama City, that state courts are required to provide free
representation to indigent defendants under the 14th Amendment. The
decision caused the release of 2,000 Florida prisoners.
Fifty
years later, the high court agreed to decide whether the federal
government can freeze a defendant's assets before trial without an
evidentiary hearing.
"Gideon couldn't afford a lawyer, so the
government said he had to go to trial without the court appointing one
for him," said attorney Howard Srebnick. "Fifty years later, the federal
government is now arguing that because court-appointed lawyers are
available to indigent defendants, the government can restrain assets
needed for counsel of choice without first having to prove to a judge
that the government has the evidence and legal authority to justify the
restraint."
Srebnick is the partner at Miami criminal defense firm
Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf. He has teamed up with Miami
appellate attorney Richard Strafer in leading the charge for Kerri and
Brian Kaley. ( Read Petition for Cert. Read brief.)
2. Fane Lozman wins again, this time in the 11th Circuit:
Two months after the U.S. Supreme Court handed Fane Lozman a huge
victory in his long-running legal battle with Riviera Beach, another
court on Monday paved the way for the fervent activist to seek millions
from the city for his troubles.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
reinstated a 2008 lawsuit Lozman filed against the city, claiming it
repeatedly violated his civil rights by hiring a private investigator to
trail him, kicking him out of public meetings and, at one point, having
him arrested when he refused to leave.
“Today felt just a tad
lower than winning at the Supreme Court,” Lozman said shortly after the
decision was announced. “The Supreme Court ruling was a 10. Today was a
9½.”
City officials didn’t return emails or phone calls for
comment about their latest loss to the former Marine who became a thorn
in their sides shortly after docking his unconventional floating home at
the city marina in 2006. City hall was closed Monday as part of
budget-cutting measures.
But, while the high court’s ruling may have stung more, the 11th Circuit’s could be more costly.
When
the nation’s high court in January ruled that the city improperly used
ancient maritime law to seize and ultimately destroy Lozman’s 60-foot
two-story floating home, the possible damages were somewhat fixed. City
officials were faced with the prospect of paying Lozman for the $167,000
he claims it would cost to replace his home, the $300,000 he spent for
attorneys and an undetermined amount to reimburse him for the money he
shelled out for living expenses after his home was destroyed.
However, he said, if he succeeds in proving that the city violated his constitutional rights, the damages could skyrocket.
“If I was the city, I’d be concerned,” he said. “That’s a seven-figure sum.”
2 comments:
5 AM post? Try to get some sleep.
The defense never rests.
Post a Comment