Back to work...

Hope everyone had a nice new year. It's good to be back. A quick look at what was missed the last week:

1. The Cuban Spies strike back... against their lawyers. From the Miami Herald:

In his appeal, Hernandez, 45, contends that his trial attorney, Paul McKenna, mishandled his defense at a 2001 Miami federal trial by focusing so much on the shoot-down location.

That strategy overshadowed evidence that Hernandez purportedly did not know in advance about the deadly Cuban plot over the Florida Straits, the appeal asserts. Evidence of his advance knowledge was crucial to proving his role in the murder conspiracy.

"In short, Hernandez's lawyer was his worst enemy in the courtroom," his appellate attorneys wrote in a habeas corpus petition filed in Miami federal court.

2. Judge Carnes vs. Judge Tjoflat in Floride Norelus v. Denny's Inc.

Both SFL and Kosher Meatball cover this 2-1 case about sanctions against the Amlongs for a 63-page errata sheet. From Judge Carnes' intro:

No one’s memory is perfect. People forget things or get confused, and anyone can make an innocent misstatement or two. Or maybe even three or four. But not 868 of them. In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys, William and Karen Amlong, filed a sixty-three page errata sheet containing 868 attempted changes to their client’s deposition testimony, which was the sole source of evidentiary support for their client’s claims. The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs. This is their appeal, or more specifically their second appeal.

But what struck me was not so much Judge Carnes' colorful way of writing about the case (agree with his decisions or not, he makes reading them fun), but instead how he engages Judge Tjoflat (the concurring judge, District Judge Bowen, did not join in any of these remarks):

• As the magistrate judge found and no one (with the possible exception of the
  dissenting judge on this panel) seriously contests, the improper submission of the
  massive errata document rendered the eight days spent on Norelus’ deposition a
  waste of time and money to say nothing of the time the attorneys were forced to
  spend on the issues created by the document itself.
• Up to this point, we have addressed the issues related to the errata document
  and the award of sanctions as those issues have been raised and defined since that
  document was submitted fourteen years ago. Our dissenting colleague, by contrast, has hatched a brand new theory—a theory that was never raised by the parties, never considered by the district court, and never argued to this Court. The theory
  that he has conjured up is that the errata sheet was really nothing more than a
  “letter” from Karen Amlong to defense counsel. It was not, he insists, an errata
  sheet because he thinks it was never presented to the court reporter or affixed to
  Norelus’ deposition as, he thinks, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires. Dissenting Op. at 1. He is wrong on his premises and wrong in his conclusion.
• Instead of recognizing the obvious import of Norelus’ own certification or following our precedent about who has the burden on appeal where there are any ambiguities, the dissenting judge would remake the case entirely along different factual lines, lines that only he sees.
• From its inception, the errata document has been understood by all, except our dissenting colleague, to be a Rule 30 errata sheet.
• That certification itself and its use to assert “exceptions” to the deposition belies the dissent’s far-fetched assertion that the errata sheet was nothing more than a letter from one attorney to another. And there is more.
• The Amlongs, the defendants, the magistrate judge, the district court judge, all three judges of this Court in Amlong I, everyone in the district court after the remand, and both parties in briefing and arguing the present appeal have understood that. Everyone has understood it—except for our dissenting colleague.
• Now, after almost a decade-and-a-half of litigation, he has been able to discern what everyone else has overlooked: that the Rule 30 errata sheet is not really a Rule 30 errata sheet, but it is instead “a document, although entitled ‘errata sheet,’ [which] had no more legal efficacy than a letter.” Dissenting Op. at 22. During a period of almost fifteen years of looking at the document, no one else has ever thought it was just a letter. And no wonder. Treating the errata sheet as nothing more than a letter is like arguing after Gettysburg that the warring sides had been mistaken all along about the bombardment of Fort Sumter, that it was actually nothing more than a diplomatic overture.
• And the dissenting judge’s extraordinary perception does not end there. He
  is even able to perceive that everyone else’s inability to see that the errata sheet isnot really an errata sheet is not the fault of the Amlongs, who designated it an
  errata sheet and have been arguing for almost a decade and a half that is what it is, and not the fault of all the judges who have consistently treated it as an errata sheet, but instead is the fault of—who else is left? Defense counsel, of course. See Dissenting Op. at 2, 19–20, 22–23.
• Even beyond the facts, there is another problem with the dissent’s attempt to inject the not-an-errata-sheet-but-just-a-letter issue into the case at this point. The issue has been defaulted about as many times and in about as many ways as any issue can be.

Sorry for all the bullets, but wow. Is it me, or was that opinion something more than a "diplomatic overture"?

3. SFL won the blog fantasy football league this year. Well done!

4. Mona and I won the Above the Law fantasy football league.

5. I beat Rumpole in the regular season head-to-head football challenge, but we will continue it into the playoffs. It was a fun battle, especially because watching the Dolphins was torture.

6. Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog is leaving Akin Gump and is going back out on his own. (Via ATL)

Cuban spy resentenced

Antonio Guerrero, who was originally sentenced to life, was just resentenced to almost 22 years in prison by Judge Lenard after the case was remanded by the 11th Circuit. The parties had agreed to 20 years in prison, but Judge Lenard found that the case warranted a higher sentence.

Here's the Herald coverage and the AP.

Guerrero has about 11 more years to go, but that's a whole lot better than life. Two other spies will have their resentencings soon.

Prior blog coverage here.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court granted cert in Jeff Skilling's case today, which raises a similar issue to that of the Cuban 5 -- can "searing media attacks" taint a criminal trial. The case also raises questions about the honest services statute, which the New York Times highlighted today in the Conrad Black case.

I like this parenthetical in the article:

(The appeals court decision affirming Mr. Black’s conviction, by Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, contained perhaps the best judicial digression of 2008. Discussing a so-called ostrich jury instruction, Judge Posner paused to say that ostriches do not in fact bury their heads in the sand. “It is pure legend and a canard on a very distinguished bird,” he wrote.)

Alrighty then.

Will Supremes grant cert for Cuban 5?

That's the question raised by Jay Weaver in today's Herald.
Less than 1% of cert petitions get granted, but Tom Goldstein signed on to this one and there are very interesting legal issues getting lots of pub. I'll go out on a limb and say cert will be granted in this case. (Prior coverage here)

What say you dear readers?

Will the Supreme Court grant cert in the Cuban 5 case?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Amici support Cuban 5

John Pacenti covers the amicus briefs filed in support of the Cuban 5:

Nobel laureates, scholars and international organizations have flooded the U.S. Supreme Court with legal briefs in support of five convicted Cuban spies, arguing the defendants were sandbagged from the start because the Miami trial took place in a city defined by decades of anti-Castro fervor.
A dozen amicus briefs focus mainly on U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard’s denial of a defense motion to move the trial 25 miles north to Fort Lauderdale.
Her refusal "guaranteed that jurors would be drawn from a cross-section of a community inflamed by passion, warped by prejudice, awed by violence and menaced by the virulence of public opinion," according to a petitions filed by the Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law in Washington.
The Howard brief has particularly offended the Cuban-American community, said Roland Sanchez-Medina, president of the Cuban American Bar Association. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, he said his organization would respond with an amicus brief of its own.
"They obvious did zero actual research to do with anything about the Cuban-American community," he said. "It’s unbelievably inflammatory, ignorant and completely baseless."

Supreme Court stud Tom Goldstein is heading up the Supreme Court litigation for the five:

Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, who is handling the Supreme Court appeal for the convicted spies, noted support for the defendants has come "from people from all over the world."
Judge Lenard ruled anti-Castro hostility related "to events other than the espionage activities in which defendants were allegedly involved," and any partiality could be vetted during jury selection.
"This was a serious injustice, and it sent all the wrong signals to the world about our commitment to a fair and impartial trial," Goldstein said.

Interesting article, but Pacenti should have given a little more pub to Richard Klugh, who has been guy writing the legal papers throughout these proceedings.

News and Notes

1. Liberty City 6, part 3, starts today. (via Herald)

2. The Cuban Spies are petitioning for cert and have brought in super Supreme Court lawyer, Tom Goldstein (of ScotusBlog fame). They are also trying to work out a political resolution to the case. (via Herald)

3. John Pacenti at the DBR covers the Mutual Benefits lawyers who were indicted.

4. The Congressional delegation from South Florida is being sworn in at the new courthouse this morning. Here's a picture of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from the proceedings.

Cuban Spy decision from 11th...

... is here.

Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it's a 1-1-1 opinion. Pryor writes opinion affirming convictions and vacating sentences for 3 defendants. Birch concurs, but states that case should go to Supreme Court on venue issue and that murder issue is very close. Kravitch dissents on whether evidence was sufficient on the murder conviction.

I have a funny feeling this case isn't over...

Cuban Spies go to Atlanta

While most of Atlanta was focused on Michael Vick today, the 11th Circuit heard a spirited oral argument (the third argument in this case) in the Cuban Spy case. According to this AP account, there was a line out the door to see the argument:

Dozens of people lined up outside the Atlanta courthouse more than two hours before the arguments began to watch the latest chapter of the decade-long saga unfold.

Pictured is defense lawyer Brenda Bryn and Richard Klugh. To her left is AUSA Caroline Heck Miller. The picture is from the AP's Richard Miller. Here's the background on the case:

The "Cuban Five" have been lionized as heroes in Cuba, while exile groups say they were justly punished.
Castro's government sent Gerardo Hernandez, Ramon Labanino, Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero and Fernando Gonzalez to South Florida to gather information about anti-communist exile groups and send it back to the island using encrypted software, high-frequency radio transmissions and coded electronic phone messages.
The five were convicted of being unregistered foreign agents, and three were found guilty of espionage conspiracy for failed efforts to obtain military secrets. Hernandez was also convicted of murder conspiracy in the deaths of four Miami-based pilots whose small, private planes were shot down in February 1996 by a Cuban MiG in international waters off Cuba's northern coast.
They were sentenced to terms ranging from 10 years to life in December 2001, but the case has ping-ponged through the court system the last six years due to a round of appeals.
In August 2005, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta tossed the verdicts, saying the five didn't receive a fair trial because of anti-Castro bias in Miami. But the convictions were reinstated exactly a year later by the full 11th Circuit.
Monday's arguments before another three-judge panel of the court offered the five their latest shot at freedom.

Richard Klugh for the defense:

Defense attorney Richard Klugh focused his arguments on Guerrero, who was accused of sending detailed reports on the Naval Air Station at Key West. He said his client could have used public information _ not clandestine espionage _ to piece together the reports.
"An enterprising reporter could have obtained the same info that Antonio Guerrero obtained on that base," Klugh said. "He's doing a life sentence for something that could have been published in the Miami Herald."

And Brenda Bryn followed, saying that "prosecutors breached 12 different categories of misconduct that 'have never before been identified in one case.' She said the law demands the court reopen the case based on the "flagrancy" of the misconduct, noting that 28 of 34 objections lodged against prosecutors during closing arguments were sustained."

AUSA Caroline Heck Miller responded:

"Red baiting. Communism. Your Honor, that was not the record of this case," Miller said. "It was a soberly tried case."

"You don't have to be crazy to be a criminal defense lawyer in this town- but it helps!!!!"

Jack Blumenfeld, a long-time criminal defense lawyer in Miami, who has represented Jose Battle, Sr. and one of the "Cuban spies", emailed us last night regarding the Padilla verdict and how criminal defense lawyers suffer from disease where you convince yourself that you have a shot at a NG verdict in impossible cases. With permission, we reprint his email here:

If you want to talk to some lawyers to get an idea what the defense is going through, talk to [the Cuban Spy lawyers] about the effect on us when the Cuban Spy jury came back with guilty verdicts. We may have been the only 5 people in Dade County who thought that we could win a NG for Cuban spies in Miami- and that included the defendants, all 5 of whom knew what the outcome would be. I think judge Lenard saw the devastation on our faces, as she cleared the courtroom and had the doors locked, so we could partially recover. Ironically, the defendants were consoling the lawyers. I was in a daze for a week.

These people will go through the same thing. It happens when you ABSOLUTELY know you won the trial but lost the verdict. Cuban Spies- Alleged AQ members- and we all fought our hearts out for a NG- doesn't that make you feel great you chose criminal defense? You don't have to be crazy to be a criminal defense lawyer in this town- but it helps!!!!

Cuban spy speaks

BBC World Service program Newshour has the exclusive interview with convicted Cuban spy Gerardo Hernandez, who received a life sentence from Judge Lenard. His case is still on appeal and is set to be argued in August.

Looks to be an interesting interview. Jay Weaver covers it here. Here's the intro:

A convicted Cuban spy network leader admitted in a prison interview that he was an ''agent'' for Cuba's government, but that he infiltrated South Florida to defend his homeland against alleged attacks by Miami exile ``terrorists.''

Gerardo Hernandez, imprisoned for life in a federal penitentiary in California, said he was not guilty of conspiring with the Cuban air force to shoot down exile pilots over the Florida Straits in 1996 as part of his spy mission.

''Absolutely not,'' Hernandez, 40, said in an interview with the BBC World Service program Newshour, which airs today. During the exclusive interview, Hernandez said the ''worst part'' of his imprisonment was not being able to see his wife of 19 years because the U.S. government has rejected giving her a visa.

Hernandez said he also spoke by phone two years ago with Fidel Castro, who said ''he was confident that justice will prevail'' in the spy case.

DBR on the Cuban Five

Picking up on our coverage here, the DBR discussed in detail the Cuban Spy appeal:

The 11th Circuit has set oral arguments for Aug. 20 to hear whether there was sufficient evidence to convict one of the defendants of conspiracy to commit murder; whether there was prosecutorial misconduct; whether prosecutors improperly kept classified material from the defendants; and whether sentencing guidelines were followed. In August 2005, the full 11th Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard’s ruling — and overturned a three-judge panel ruling — that it was fair to conduct the trial in Miami despite the strong anti-Fidel Castro feelings there. Among the nine issues to be argued in August, the most important one for the defense is the sufficiency of evidence on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. Lawyers will argue that prosecutors overreached in charging one of the defendants with that count.

***

Whatever the panel does, the case is eventually headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the venue issue and other issues, say lawyers involved in the case. “The defense team remains optimistic and hopeful for a just outcome,” said Richard Klugh, an assistant federal public defender in Miami who represents Fernando Gonzales, who was convicted of failing to register as a foreign agent as well as immigration violations. “There are substantial issues of fundamental fairness at stake.” “We will never let the venue issue die,” McKenna said. “We will go to a higher court. We feel so strongly about it.” But Guy Lewis, who was U.S. Attorney in Miami at the time of the trial, said he’s confident the prosecution will prevail on appeal. “The defense arguments have no merit,” said Lewis, now an attorney at Lewis Tein in Coral Gables. “This is just Monday morning quarterbacking. The sooner the court hears the arguments, the sooner they’ll reject them and bring finality to the case.”


If you are interested in the briefs, you can read them at the DBR cite.

Cuban Five oral argument

Now that the venue issue has been resolved, the Eleventh Circuit has set the Cuban Five case (Cuban Spy case) for special oral argument on August 20, 2007 on the remaining 15 issues.