Lenard rejected a new bid by defense attorney Arturo Hernandez to hold an evidentiary hearing to explore whether a Justice Department lawyer who teamed up with a Miami prosecutor in the La Bamba trial knew about the FBI’s investigation of Shapiro in New Jersey months before he took the stand.
Hernandez filed documents such as government emails in hopes of challenging the Miami prosecution team’s timeline.
The Miami prosecutors first informed Hernandez of the Shapiro criminal probe when Shapiro was charged in April 2010.
Hernandez argued that had he been told about the Shapiro probe, he would have asked him about his investment scam on the witness stand. Hernandez said he was “disappointed” with the judge’s ruling.
2. The Justice Department found lots of bad Miami police shootings. From the NY Times:
Federal officials have found that the Miami Police Department engaged in a pattern of excessive force that led to a high number of shootings by officers, among them episodes that resulted in the deaths of seven young black men over an eight-month period in 2011.
The findings, released on Tuesday, came after a two-year investigation by the Justice Department’s civil rights division, and they identified “troubling” practices, including delays in completing investigations of officer-involved shootings, questionable police tactics and a lack of adequate supervision. From 2008 to 2011, officers intentionally fired their weapons at people 33 times, the investigation found.
In a summary addressed to Tomas P. Regalado, Miami’s mayor, and Manuel Orosa, the police chief, the Justice Department noted that its own investigation would have been completed sooner if not for the Police Department’s “frequent inability to produce necessary documents in a timely fashion.”
Here's the letter to the Mayor.
3. Young guns can see who the best closer is at this upcoming competition. My advice -- don't start with a knock knock joke.
4. Judge Kozinski is so good. Footnote 1 from a 1992 opinion of his that was recently emailed to me:
We do not (except in the caption) follow the appellant's counsel's interesting practice of writing the names of the people involved in CAPITAL LETTERS. Neither do we follow the appellee's counsel's practice of writing appellant's name in BOLD-FACED CAPITAL LETTERS. Nor do we intend to write all numbers both as text and numerals, as in "eleven (11) loose teeth, two (2) of which were shattered[;] [m]oreover, her jaw was broken in three (3) places." Appellee's Brief at 7. Finally, we will also not "set off important text" by putting it on "separate lines" and enclosing it in "quotation marks."
See id. at 10. While we realize counsel had only our welfare in mind in engaging in these creative practices, we assure them that we would have paid no less attention to their briefs had they been more conventionally written.
Here's the letter to the Mayor.
3. Young guns can see who the best closer is at this upcoming competition. My advice -- don't start with a knock knock joke.
4. Judge Kozinski is so good. Footnote 1 from a 1992 opinion of his that was recently emailed to me:
We do not (except in the caption) follow the appellant's counsel's interesting practice of writing the names of the people involved in CAPITAL LETTERS. Neither do we follow the appellee's counsel's practice of writing appellant's name in BOLD-FACED CAPITAL LETTERS. Nor do we intend to write all numbers both as text and numerals, as in "eleven (11) loose teeth, two (2) of which were shattered[;] [m]oreover, her jaw was broken in three (3) places." Appellee's Brief at 7. Finally, we will also not "set off important text" by putting it on "separate lines" and enclosing it in "quotation marks."
See id. at 10. While we realize counsel had only our welfare in mind in engaging in these creative practices, we assure them that we would have paid no less attention to their briefs had they been more conventionally written.
Only a dipshit would consider anything Shapiro says as anything less than a lie.
ReplyDeleteHe would pay attention - many of the members of our Eleventh would not pay attention to a defendant's brief if it had f'ing neon lights highlighting important sections. Such deliberate ignorance is compatible with not addressing arguments that have merit and multiple findings of harmless error.
ReplyDelete