News & Notes

1.   David Ovalle covers the exploding numbers of COVID+ inmates in Florida prisons, which are being grossly underreported:

The U.S. Bureau of Prisons is finally acknowledging that at least two employees at the Miami Federal Detention Center have tested positive for COVID-19, according to its public coronavirus tracking website. A union official said Monday that a third officer at the Downtown Miami facility has also tested positive, and more are awaiting test results.

The official, Jose Rojas, has been openly critical of how the Bureau of Prisons has handled the coronavirus crisis. He said officers were not allowed to wear masks while on duty until April 8, and the department continues to transport inmates from facility to facility, elevating the risk of spreading the highly contagious virus.

“They’re lying about the numbers they are posting on their website,” said Rojas, the Southeast regional vice president of the corrections council of the American Federation of Government Employees. “They won’t want to make themselves look bad.”

2.  The 11th Circuit in a 2-1 decision (Newsom wrote the majority, joined by Tjoflat; dissent by Hull) ruled that the Crimes Victim Rights Act does not apply to the Jeffrey Epstein case because no criminal case was ever brought.  120 pages of decisions here.  Here's the intro to the majority:

This case, which is before us on a petition for writ of mandamus, arises out of a civil suit filed under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004. Petitioner Courtney Wild is one of more than 30 women—girls, really—who were victimized by notorious sex trafficker and child abuser Jeffrey Epstein. In her petition, Ms.Wild alleges that when federal prosecutors secretly negotiated and entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein in 2007, they violated her rights under the CVRA—in particular, her rights to confer with the government’s lawyers and to be treated fairly by them.
Despite our sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein’s hands, only to be left in the dark—and, so it seems, affirmatively misled—by government lawyers, we find ourselves constrained to deny her petition. We hold that at least as matters currently stand—which is to say at least as the CVRA is currently written—rights under the Act do not attach until criminal proceedings have been initiated against a defendant, either by complaint, information, or indictment. Because the government never filed charges or otherwise commenced criminal proceedings against Epstein, the CVRA was never triggered. It’s not a result we like, but it’s the result we think the law requires.

 Things get a little testy.  Newsom:

Having so held, two final words.
First, regarding the dissent: Although we have endeavored along the way to meet a few of the dissent’s specific critiques, we must offer here two more global responses. As an initial matter, with respect to the dissent’s charge (Dissenting Op. at 65) that we have “dresse[d] up” what it calls a “flawed statutory analysis” with “rhetorical flourish”—well, readers can judge for themselves whose rhetoric is in fact more florid. See, e.g., id. at 61 (“So how does the Majority bail the U.S. Attorney’s Office out of its egregious CVRA violations . . . ?”); id. at 94 (“So how in the holy name of plain text . . . ?”); id. (“The Majority hacks away at the plain text with four tools.”); id. (“The Majority cherry picks the meaning of ‘case’ . . . .”); id. at 96 (“Nonsense.”); id. at 98 (“As its third tool to axe the plain text . . . .”); id. (“Do not fall for this.”); id. 106 (accusing us of ruling “by judicial fiat”); id. at 109–10 (twice accusing us of fearing crime victims more than “wealthy defendants”).

Hull:

 While the Majority laments how the national media fell short on the Jeffrey Epstein story, this case is about how the U.S. prosecutors fell short on Epstein’s evil crimes. See Maj. Op. at 6. Our criminal justice system should safeguard children from sexual exploitation by criminal predators, not re-victimize them. The Majority concludes that our Court is constrained to leave the victims “emptyhanded,” and it is up to Congress to “amend the Act to make its intent clear.” Id. at 19, 52. Not true. The empty result here is only because our Court refuses to enforce a federal statute as Congress wrote it. The CVRA is not as impotent as the Majority now rewrites it to be.
Given the undisputed facts that the U.S. Attorney’s Office completed its investigation, drafted a 53-page indictment, and negotiated for days with Epstein’s defense team, the Office egregiously violated federal law and the victims’ rights by (1) not conferring one minute with them (or their counsel) before striking the final NPA deal granting federal immunity to Epstein and his co-conspirators, (2) intentionally and unfairly concealing the NPA from the victims, as well as how the upcoming State Court plea hearing would directly affect them, and (3) affirmatively misrepresenting the status of the case to the victims after the NPA was executed. I would remand for the District Court to fashion a remedy.
For all of these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Majority’s (1) decision that the crime victims of Epstein and his co-conspirators had no statutory rights whatsoever under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and (2) denial of the victims’ petition in this case as a matter of law.

3. And to further yesterday's post about Zoom hearings, check out this Broward judge who says to put on a shirt and get out of bed!

“It is remarkable how many ATTORNEYS appear inappropriately on camera,” the judge wrote in the letter posted on the Weston Bar Association website. “We’ve seen many lawyers in casual shirts and blouses, with no concern for ill-grooming, in bedrooms with the master bed in the background, etc. One male lawyer appeared shirtless and one female attorney appeared still in bed, still under the covers.

“And putting on a beach cover-up won’t cover up you’re poolside in a bathing suit. So, please, if you don’t mind, let’s treat court hearings as court hearings, whether Zooming or not.”