HOORAY!

You know who here, still...oh hail let's get right to John Pacenti's delicious write-up of the big man's big win:

“This verdict restored my faith in our justice system,” said David O. Markus, one of Shaygan’s attorneys. “It shows win-at-all costs takes a back seat to justice.”

Marc Seitles and Robin Kaplan also represented the doctor.

Seitles was hollering “not guilty” outside the courtroom after the verdict was read in front of U.S. District Court Judge Alan S. Gold.

U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta has said the secret taping of Markus and a defense investigator was wrong, and Cronin and Hoffman violated office policy. The matter has been referred to Justice Department’s Office of Professional Regulation for review.

...

Markus, [Robin Kaplan,] and Seitles said in court documents that Cronin threatened the case would take “a seismic shift” if Shaygan challenged a claim by a Drug Enforcement Administration agent that the doctor failed to invoke his right to counsel when questioned.

Prosecutors promptly filed 100 more counts after Shaygan filed the motion to suppress, which eventually was won by the defense.

Nice quote, David! I also like this exchange from the Sun-Sentinel:

Several jurors lingered outside the courtroom to congratulate Shaygan and his defense team.

"The jury did the right thing," said David O. Markus, Shaygan's lead attorney. "This sends a message that justice prevails."

But Shaygan said he is unsure he will return to practicing medicine.

"I know 100 percent that I want to continue helping people," he said. "That's the most important thing."

Helping people.....has a nice ring to it.

Waiting For the Man.

SFL here, waiting like everyone else for the jury to come back in the big man's trial:

"Addicts sometimes lie to get their drugs and doctors are going to get fooled," defense attorney David Markus said. "But that doesn't make them drug dealers."

Shaygan is charged with 141 counts of unlawful prescribing. He is accused of causing the 2007 overdose death of a West Palm Beach man.

The jury begins deliberations today. If convicted, Shaygan, who lives in Miami Beach, could face more than 20 years in prison.

During the three-week trial, jurors heard from former patients, medical experts and undercover police who went to Shaygan's office posing as pain patients.

Shaygan also took the stand, insisting he did his best to care for his patients. To convict, prosecutors must show Shaygan prescribed medication without "legitimate medical purpose."

In his closing argument, Cronin called Shaygan's medical practice a "charade" and his medical degree "a license to deal drugs."

But Markus said Shaygan gave patients random urine tests to screen for illicit drugs and dismissed several he suspected of abusing narcotics, proving he was no pill pusher.

I'll let you all know as soon as I hear anything.

UPDATE: Rump calls it for the big man!!!

Closing Arguments in the Shaygan Trial

Hi kids, SFL still in da' house (to paraphrase rap artist/Congresswoman Bachmann), while the big man does that thing trial lawyers do, what is it again, oh yeah:

Prosecutors and defense lawyers will make closing arguments today in the trial of a South Florida physician accused of acting as a drug dealer.

Dr. Ali Shaygan, 36, faces 141 counts of improper prescribing and is charged with causing the 2007 overdose death of a West Palm Beach man.

If convicted, he faces at least 20 years in prison.

I see David put his client on the stand:

"Have you ever just sold [prescriptions] for cash?" his attorney asked.

"No, never," Shaygan answered.

The trial, which has lasted almost four weeks, has been contentious, with aggressive lawyering on both sides.

Last week, Shaygan's attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Alan Gold to throw out the case because government agents secretly taped phone calls between the defense team and trial witnesses.

Prosecutors have said the taping "was not handled as well as it should have been," but that the charges should stand.

GOOD LUCK DAVID!!

Shaygan Trial Cross-Examination

SFL here, because David is there:

'These people there said, `Tape-record the defense,' '' defense attorney David O. Markus declared, pointing to prosecutors Sean Cronin and Andrea Hoffman. ``When I called you, you tape-recorded me.''

The government witness, Trinity Clendening, agreed, admitting he recorded Markus on his home phone two times in December.

The strained exchange marked the second time that the defense lawyer got an opportunity to cross-examine Clendening, a Drug Enforcement Administration informant who inadvertently revealed on the witness stand last month that he had taped their conversations before the trial.

Markus said those recordings, along with a second government witness' taping of his private investigator, may have improperly given prosecutors a window into the defense strategy.

Markus attacked Clendening during the cross-examination for asking for money on the phone, suggesting the solicitation was meant to set him up as a lawyer who would pay for information. Markus is seeking to have his client's indictment thrown out.

U.S. District Alan Gold has the authority to dismiss the indictment, declare a mistrial or allow the trial to be completed. He also could instruct the jury on how to weigh the two government witnesses' testimony.

The U.S. attorney's office, though admitting it made a ''mistake'' by failing to follow policy, opposed a dismissal or mistrial. Last week. U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said the case supervisor, Karen Gilbert, should have sought approval from him and two other senior officials before having the two government witnesses place recording devices on their phones.

Ok, that speaks to (but doesn't answer, in my mind) the authority to record question. What about the disclosure issue?

Oh hail, I'm going back to civil litigation.

SFL post

SFL here, tending bar.

[DOM edit -- Sorry SFL, I decided to take out the section you wrote up about my trial. I try not to blog about my ongoing trials...]

For more fun government facts, take a look at the previously-secret John Yoo Justice Department memos that explain how the United States should treat its citizens during wartime:

"The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically," Justice Department officials John Yoo and Robert Delahunty wrote White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in the Oct. 23 memo.

"We do not think that a military commander carrying out a raid on a terrorist cell would be required to demonstrate probable cause or to obtain a (search) warrant," they said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires a probable cause and a warrant to execute a search. However, the memo said those requirements "are unsuited to the demands of wartime."

Furthermore, it said, "First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully."

"The government's compelling interests in wartime justify restrictions on the scope of individual liberty," it said. The Justice Department under Bush had fought a lawsuit which sought to make the memo public.

Oh well, past is past!