1. Our District continues to shut down operations. No more grand juries until April 27. And, in general, no more in person hearings in criminal cases for 90 days. Video conferencing instead. For pleas and sentencings, defendants can opt for continuances or video hearings.
2. In California, Elizabeth Henriquez will proceed to her sentencing in the Varsity Blues case by video conference.
3. The 11th Circuit is in session this week, but it will be conducting oral argument by teleconference (not video). You can listen live here. I will be arguing on Friday. Should be interesting.
4. BOP suffered its first prisoner death over the weekend. Patrick Jones was 49 at FCI Oakdale in Louisiana. He had applied for a sentence reduction under the First Step Act but was denied. I wonder how prosecutors who are opposing these motions will feel when these people get sick and die in prison.
5. Okay, okay, enough with the bad news. Some good news! Former SDFLA AUSA Michael Sherwin, who has been working as Associate Deputy Attorney General on national security matters, has been named Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney in DC. It's a big deal. Congrats to one of the good guys!
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
13 comments:
Answer to Number 4: They don't care. The AUSA who opposed the motion will lose absolutely no sleep and will go to court tomorrow to answer another motion with: Boo Hoo, those poor defendants having to serve their sentences.
20-cv-21339-KMM
If the motion under the First Step Act is without merit, I don't think the opposing prosecutor should be held responsible for future sickness or death. Just as I don't think the denying judge should be held responsible.
If we want mass release from prison on account of the coronavirus or some other reason, let's do it through politically accountable actors as opposed to Art. III judges rewriting the First Step Act.
2:11 thank you!
5:52, why would you assume the motion was without merit? Why would you assume that the defendant was asking the judge to "rewrite the act."
As I read the reports, all agreed he was eligible for relief the AUSA and judge simply thought he should not received a reduced sentence.
Our politically accountable players therefore said he should get relief and the unaccountable ones said no.
And he died.
The motion was denied feb 20. The (presumed) opposition was filed before that, prob by at least a month. Remember as late as March 2, the mayor of nyc was tweeting we should live our lives as normal and catch a good movie. Texas (Mr. Patrick was convicted in the WD Tex) didnt even have its first coronavirus case until March 16. And of course, Mr. Patrick wasnt even diagnosed until after all of that. The prison took him to the hospital where he was admitted. The day after his admission he was placed on a ventilator, and unfortunately he died.
Not to mention, Mr. Patrick was only half way through a 27 year sentence. He was a career offender with 9 prior burglaries, and multiple prior drug offenses, when he decided to deal crack while on probation. Even if he was able to skim a few years off his sentence, it doesnt mean he'd have been out anytime soon.
And you pin his death on the prosecutor? You are quite the scholar...
Geeze this blog has vicious comments. Rough crowd. Home sheltering makes people edgy.
"I wonder how prosecutors who are opposing these motions will feel when these people get sick and die in prison."
Really a ridiculous thing to say.
If a defense atty gets a guy acquitted, and the next day he kills someone, it would also not be appropriate to say "I wonder how the defense atty feels now that he is the reason someone is dead."
There is no causation in either scenario. This is elementary school level stupidity.
I agree 8:38 that your reasoning is specious. At a jury trial, a defense lawyer is required by the 6th Amendment to provide an effective defense. And then the jury decides after hearing from the prosecutor and the judge's instructions.
In the case to which David referred, the defendant was eligible for relief. The AUSA made the discretionary choice to oppose release. A more casual connection, you would agree?
Defense lawyer here - that is actually my nightmare. I think quite a few defense lawyers actually feel that way. We fight full on anyhow, but definitely do not want our former clients out there hurting people. Thankfully, white collar criminals don't tend to physically harm people when they are let loose.
1024
Since you are so quick to cast blame and culpability...
When was the opposition filed?
Why did the prosecutor oppose a reduction?
How much crack was the defendant dealing?
What were his priors?
Did his offense (or priors) involve violence or the threat of violence?
Did he conduct business while armed with a firearm?
Has he ever cooperated?
Do you know ANY of the relevant facts or is the sum of your argument "prosecutors are evil"?
Heres a funny one..
https://twitter.com/counseloradrian/status/1245061702011490304?s=21
Congress wrote the First Step Act to give district court judges the wide discretion that it had previously given the BOP. The BOP had never exercised that discretion and hundreds of prisoners died waiting for BOP to act on their compassionate release cases. And that was BEFORE COVID-19.
It seems some district court judges are just as reluctant as the BOP to exercise that discretion and people will die as a result.
Post a Comment