Judge Sidney Aronovitz

 Guest Post By Cary Aronovitz 

Sidney Aronovitz – 1976-1997 – Southern District of Florida

It is an honor to write a post about my Grandfather, Sidney Aronovitz.  He was the descendent of Romanian Jews who fled persecution in Europe seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  A proud Conch—born and raised in Key West—he went to law school at the University of Florida before serving as a Captain in the United States army during World War II.  He married my Grandma Eleanor, raised three children Elaine, Tod, and Karen, and then worked in private practice and as a City of Miami Commissioner: always believing in the importance of public service.  He was then appointed in 1976 by President Gerald Ford as the first Jewish judge in the Southern District of Florida.  When my Dad, Tod Aronovitz, served as President of the Florida Bar in 2002 he wrote a page to honor our judges, focusing on Sidney Aronovitz and Bill Hoeveler.  That article—as true today as ever—summarizes it best:

Judges, all too often, are misunderstood. More times than not they toil in solitude, silently wrestle with difficult decisions, quietly seek truth and fairness in their courtrooms, and receive no fanfare.

In 1976, U.S. Senators Lawton Chiles and Robert Stone recommended Sidney Aronovitz to President Gerald Ford to become a United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida. My father was a Key West native, a highly regarded local Miami general corporate practitioner, and an active community leader. It took President Ford two long years to make the appointment. My father made President Ford, the U.S. Senate, his family, and his community proud by his dedication to judging.

He was a compassionate man, a legal scholar, and was fair to everyone who entered his courtroom—attorney, litigant, witness, or a person being sentenced. He truly loved being a judge, including the challenges, the demands, and the results achieved in completing a task well. Most judges exhibit the same qualities and the same judicial goals.

During his 22 years on the bench, he brought home a stuffed briefcase six days a week and would labor over complex cases and difficult criminal sentencing issues. He would only speak of the outstanding, well-prepared, articulate attorneys who came before him. The poorly prepared lawyers were never the subject of his conversations. His pride in his judicial colleagues was noteworthy. I see in the eyes of Florida’s judges the same pride.

Four-month multi-defendant criminal trials with a sequestered jury were grueling, especially when a literal mountain of heavily footnoted briefs from his other pending cases awaited his attention. Receiving U.S. Marshal Service protection 24 hours a day—and even moving from Miami to North Carolina once for safety reasons—was a part of his job.

I asked his dear friend and “bookend” on the Southern District bench, always-admired Senior U.S. District Court Judge William Hoeveler: “What does being a judge mean to you?” He responded, “I love the law and all of the collateral requirements that go with it. . . . Being a judge is hard work, long hours, and attention to the rights of the parties. It involves cases in which we have to make difficult decisions, often in situations where you find it difficult, but necessary, to rule. All in all, however, I go home satisfied with my effort to seek the truth.”

I then wanted to know of Judge Hoeveler: “What is the biggest misperception people have about being a judge?” He said, “The average citizen thinks that we get cases assigned and then we go off to try cases before a jury, and that is the end of it. The citizen who serves as a juror comes to realize what work there is in connection with the case.”

When my father was in failing health, I sat by his side while he was being admitted in a Miami hospital emergency room. Behind the admissions clerk we saw a news bulletin on CNN advising that Panamanian General Manuel Noriega was being transported to Miami to stand trial before Judge William Hoeveler. With difficulty breathing, he turned to me and said, “Bill will do a great job on that case.”

I knew my grandfather as Grandpa, not as a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida.  Still, his legacy continues with the lives of so many attorneys, judges, clerks, and litigants he shaped along the way.  Those judges and lawyers (including Judges Robert Mark and Federico Moreno) advocated and succeeded in renaming the Key West courthouse after Sidney Aronovitz.

FBA write-up below

****** 

Judge Sidney Aronovitz was nominated to the district court by President Ford and served from 1976 to 1997. A third-generation Key West native, Judge Aronovitz obtained both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Florida. He served as a captain in the U.S. Army during World War II, earning a Bronze Star for his service. 

A notable case of his was Polgreen v. Morris, 496 F. Supp. 1042 (S.D. Fla. 1982), In 1980, during the Mariel boatlift, plaintiffs—owners/captains of commercial fishing and shrimping vessels—transported Cuban refugees from Mariel Harbor to Key West. When they returned, federal authorities served them with notices of intention to fine under the immigration statutes and seized (constructively seized) their vessels, effectively grounding the boats unless substantial bonding/conditions were met.

Judge Aronovitz held that, even if the government could lawfully seize the vessels without a pre-seizure hearing, the Fifth Amendment required prompt post-seizure notice and a timely hearing at which the owners/operators could contest the propriety of the seizure, regardless of which statutory authority the government invoked. Because the government did not provide an adequate, prompt post-seizure forum, Judge Aronovitz issued a preliminary injunction allowing plaintiffs to resume lawful domestic fishing/shrimping use of their vessels (subject to bond/conditions). He wrote, in part:

"For what occurred, America is a greater nation. The manner in which the Cuban nationals were received, having been victimized by the Castro government, and being the pawns of the Cuban Freedom Flotilla, is stark evidence of that humanitarian quality which separates the United States of America from the chains imposed by those countries wherein freedom to pursue life, liberty and enjoy the fruits thereof is subjugated to the whim of the government."

RIP Frank Rubino

Frank Rubino passed away over the weekend. 

He was best known for his representation of Gen. Manuel Noriega.

 

But I also really like this story about his love of classic cars:

Now what for Tom Goldstein?

He's on house arrest.

And speaking of the house, he asked for a jury trial on the forfeiture of his house.  The jury returned a verdict for him, so at least his house is not immediately forfeited.

He's got sentencing and his appeal next.

Professor Todd Haugh discusses his prospects here:

Goldstein may have a few cards left to play. To be convicted of loan fraud, the government must prove proper venue, meaning that the criminal offense took place in the charging district. Under the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Mosby, mere “preparatory” acts to the underlying offense cannot provide a basis for venue.

The defense will argue that while prosecutors may have proven preparatory acts such as filling out loan applications took place Maryland, they didn’t prove from where he sent the documents. The Second and Eleventh Circuits would seem to agree, but language from the Tenth Circuit could create a split. That is the meatiest of a number of arguments, including over the admission of statements made in media interviews and the wording of jury instructions, that he will surely make on appeal.

Goldstein built a career managing legal risk at the highest level. Yet he’s never faced what’s happening now: being on the other side of a white-collar conviction. He undoubtedly will continue to push his chips forward.

Tom Goldstein found guilty

 Dang, I feel really awful for Tom.  Here's Bloomberg's coverage of the verdict:

Poker-playing former US Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein has been found guilty of 12 of 16 counts following a six week trial in Maryland.

Jurors returned their verdict late on Wednesday following two and a half days of deliberations.

Goldstein was found guilty on one count of tax evasion, one count each of willful failure to timely pay taxes for four tax years, three counts of making a false statement on a loan application, and four out of eight counts of aiding and assisting in preparation of a false tax return. He was found not guilty on the other four counts.

The convictions for making a false statement on a loan application carry the heftiest potential penalties—a maximum of 30 years for each count. He also faces a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment for tax evasion, three years for each count of assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, and one year on each count of willful failure to pay taxes.

Meantime, I was in trial this week in a criminal case before Judge Middlebrooks with Lauren Krasnoff and Lauren Perez. The jury hung.  Bocanewsnow covered some of the interesting jury notes we received.

Black History Month Event

 By John R. Byrne

The Court held its Black History Month event this past Friday. The program was titled, "From Promise to Progress: The Legacy of Black Lawyers in South Florida" and featured four panelists (Eugene K. Pettis, Sia Baker-Barnes, George Knox, and Dwayne Robinson) and a moderator (Chanel T. Rowe). The panelists spoke about their impressive careers and the importance of blazing a trail that other black lawyers and leaders can follow. Best of all were the pearls of wisdom offered by Mr. Knox, who drew several analogies to Forrest Gump when telling his stories.

Sharing a picture below, which was posted by attorney Charise A. Morgan.

From left to right: Dwayne Robison, George Knox, Sia Baker-Barnes, Eugene K. Pettis, Chanel T. Rowe, and Judge Gayles. 

The Times May be a-Changin’

By John R. Byrne

There are certain Supreme Court case names people just know. Marbury v. Madison. Brown v. Board of Education. Miranda v. Arizona. I think you can also put New York Times Co. v. Sullivan on that list. But should the case, which set the standard for defamation cases, be added to the "endangered precedent" list? 

The New York Times, of all periodicals, covered the latest installment in Allen Dershowitz's defamation lawsuit against CNN here. The case, you may recall, was filed in our district, with Judge Singhal ultimately granting summary judgment to CNN. In so doing, though, Judge Singhal openly questioned the legal soundness of Sullivan, calling it “a great example of how bad facts can contribute to the making of unnecessary law, and why judges and justices should not be in the business of policy writing.” On appeal, Judge Lagoa seemed to echo those sentiments, writing, “the only thing standing between Dershowitz and justice is Sullivan.”

It now looks like some of the Supreme Court justices may be open to taking a closer look at the Sullivan standard. When Dershowitz filed his cert petition, CNN waived its right to file a response, which may have been an effort to signal confidence in the continuing vitality of Sullivan. But the Supreme Court appears to have interpreted the move as whistling past the graveyard. It just ordered CNN to file a response.

Very interesting stuff. For lawyers who defend the media in defamation cases, there could be a boom in business on the horizon. 

A, B, C, D, F, U

That was district judge Thomas Ludington when asked to say the alphabet after being pulled over for DUI.  From Bloomberg:

Michigan federal Judge Thomas L. Ludington recited a portion of the alphabet as “A, B, C, D, F, U” during a field sobriety test following his 2025 drunken-driving crash, a state police report revealed.

He also twice identified himself as a federal judge after the arresting trooper and other law enforcement arrived at his damaged car, struggled to follow directions, and didn’t remember crashing or his airbags deploying, according to a report released Thursday that provided new details about the incident.

The Eastern District of Michigan judge was arrested in Emmet County, where he has a cottage, and a post-crash test showed a blood-alcohol content of 0.27—far above the legal limit of 0.08.

In local news, The Trump v. JP Morgan suit got removed to federal court.  Chief Judge Altonaga has it.

And finally, the Tom Goldstein jury has the case.  Holly Barker, who has covered the case gavel to gavel, reported on the closings here:

Prolific US Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein engaged in a “textbook tax evasion scheme” that he executed “almost flawlessly,” prosecutors told jurors at the close of his criminal case Wednesday.

You don’t have to “check your common sense” at the door, Justice Department lawyer Sean Beaty told jurors at closing argument. “How is it possible that someone who can argue the most complex cases at the Supreme Court can’t understand his legal obligation to pay his taxes on time and not lie to the IRS?”

The trial, in its sixth week in the US District Court for the District of Maryland, will head to jurors for deliberations on Thursday.

Beaty cataloged instances that Goldstein had been dishonest with people in his life—something he’d also done while cross-examining the SCOTUSblog co-founder.

“If this case comes down to credibility, there is no reason to believe Tom Goldstein,” he said. “He lied to people when he wanted something from them,” and now he “wants something from this jury.”


Goldstein’s counsel, Jonathan Kravis, countered in his closing argument that the government was attempting to mislead jurors.

Among other things, the government attempted to mislead jurors about where the loan applications at issue were signed, Kravis said.

Travel records put Goldstein in the US Virgin Islands when one of the applications was signed, and records show another application was signed in Washington, DC.

The government’s only evidence that Goldstein was in Maryland when the other applications was signed is the IP address associated with the e-filing. But the IP address isn’t reliable because it was the same even when Goldstein was out of the country.

The government could have obtained cellphone data to place Goldstein, but they didn’t. It’s just another investigative step the government failed to take, Kravis said.

When Goldstein took the stand, and the prosecution finally had the chance to ask him any question it wanted to, it “flinched,” Kravis told the jury.

Instead of confronting Goldstein about his gambling calculations, misclassified transactions, or the “actual charges” in the case, they asked about his spending.

“Why? Because at the end of the day, they got nothing,” Kravis said.

Judge Norman C. Roettger

By John R. Byrne

I never appeared before Judge Roettger but people told me that he was often armed while sitting on the bench. That got my attention. There was also his magnificent handlebar mustache, rendered perfectly in the portrait below. 

Judge Roettger was serving as Chief Judge of the district when the planning for the "new" Miami federal courthouse began. He chose Judge Moore to oversee the project, which ultimately produced the Wilkie D., where his portrait now hangs with the portraits of the other chief judges. 

FBA write up below.

Judge Norman C. Roettger was nominated to the district court by President Nixon and served from 1972 to 2003, including a term as chief judge from 1991 to 1997. Prior to his legal career, Judge Roettger served as a lieutenant in the U.S. Navy. In Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000), the Supreme Court affirmed Judge Roettger’s decision, holding that firing someone as part of a RICO conspiracy isn’t enough to sue under civil RICO unless the firing itself was racketeering or otherwise independently wrongful under RICO.