Monday notes

1. Judge Cooke will be hearing a dispute filed by the Marley heirs against a half brother. Curt Anderson has the details.

2. Alan Fein is a big-time blogger now, opining on Obamacare and Miami and Judge Marcus.

3. Another big case, another dismissal due to prosecutorial misconduct (via Thomson Reuters):

Matz based his decision on numerous examples of government misconduct, beginning with falsehoods in search-and-seizure warrant applications, extending to false and misleading grand jury testimony by an FBI agent, and compounded by prosecutors' failure to turn over some of that testimony to the defense. Handzlik, Levine, and their teams had alerted the judge to much of the misconduct before the jury reached a verdict, but Matz said the magnitude of the government's behavior became clear only in retrospect.

"When a trial judge managing a large docket is required to devote a great deal of time and effort to a fast-moving case that requires numerous rulings, often the judge will miss the proverbial forest for the trees," Matz wrote. "That is what occurred here ... . The government has acknowledged making many 'mistakes,' as it characterizes them. 'Many' indeed. So many, in fact, and so varied, and occurring over so lengthy a period (between 2008 and 2011) that they add up to an unusual and extreme picture of a prosecution gone badly awry."

Here's the order. It's worth a read.

11th Circuit decides Padilla case 2-1

Here is the opinion .

Judge Dubina writes the majority, which Judge Pryor joins, affirming the conviction and reversing Jose Padilla's 17 year sentence as too low. Judge Barkett dissents on both the conviction and sentencing holdings. In total, there are 120 pages of opinions. This case seems destined for Supreme Court review.

More to follow...

Judge Cooke finds 300+ year mandatory sentence for juvenile unconstitutional

Here's the money passage:

Here, Mathurin faces a mandatory minimum 307-year sentence. Because Congress has abolished the federal parole system, this sentence gives Mathurin no possibility of release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. A significant portion of this sentence is comprised of mandatory 25-year consecutive sentences required under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides:

[N]o term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.

Under Graham, this provision of § 924(c)(1)(D) is unconstitutional as applied to Mathurin, a juvenile offender convicted of non-homicide offenses. To apply the statute in accordance with the Eighth Amendment, severance of the constitutionally offensive portion of § 924(c)(1)(D) is necessary.

Judge Cooke ends up finding the rest of the statute can be saved and sentences James Mathurin to 40 years in prison, meaning he will get out in his 50s, instead of spending the rest of his life in jail. Here's the entire order.

Cooke Finds Sentence Unconstitutional

Happy Halloween

So, Judge Cooke sentenced a cooperting UBS guy to probation the other day, and today Judge Cohn sentenced a similarly situated co-defendant to 3 months in prison. Curt Anderson has the details:

A federal judge Friday rejected a plea for probation from a New York businessman who admitted concealing $8 million in secret Swiss bank accounts, imposing instead a three-month prison term in the high-profile tax evasion case.
U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn said toy salesman Jeffrey Chernick deserves credit for his cooperation in the broad U.S. probe of Swiss bank UBS AG. But he said allowing Chernick to avoid prison for filing a false tax return "sends the wrong message" in a case that has made international headlines.
"If the court issues a slap on the wrist, to me the notoriety becomes negative," Cohn said. "It essentially informs the public that you can cheat on your income taxes and get away with probation."
Chernick, 70, had faced between 18 months and two years under federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors asked Cohn for a nine-month prison term, noting that Chernick's disclosures led directly to the indictments of a Swiss banker and Swiss lawyer on conspiracy charges as well as charges against other UBS clients in the U.S.

Interesting to see the differences in the judges' comments and the ultimate sentence.

Anyway, I'll leave you all with this video, wishing you all a Happy Halloween:

Sentencing question

So will the Liberty City 7 6 5 get more or less time than Jose Padilla? Remember that Judge Cooke sentenced Padilla to 17 years and his co-defendants to less time. (The over-under line was 20 years). Certainly the Liberty City defendants will be citing to Padilla's case and arguing that they should get way less time. We'll set the over-under in this case at 17 years, the same sentence that Padilla received, for the lead defendant. What do you all think the appropriate sentences are now that they have been convicted?

CocoDorm allowed

The Herald headline is: "Judge OK's gay porn filming in Miami."

Headlines don't get much better than that, do they?

The Judge is Judge Cooke.

Here is some of the article:

The boys of Cocodorm -- Snow Bunni, J Fizzo, et al -- are staying put, after a federal judge ruled that the gay porn website has a right to film out of its Edgewater home.
Cocodorm.com features black and Hispanic men, known as ''dorm dudes,'' who share a webcam-filled house together.
Miami has tried to shut the house down, arguing it constitutes an adult business illegally operating in a residential area. The city's Code Enforcement Board in 2007 agreed, but Cocodorm responded to the code enforcement proceedings by suing in federal court.
From the outside, the Cocodorm house looks like any other residence. Those who want to see Cocodorm do so via the Internet, with a credit card. Last week, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke sided with Cocodorm, basing her ruling on a previous case involving the city of Tampa and another adult website, Voyeurdorm.com.
Like Miami, Tampa tried to use its adult-business zoning laws to close the ''dorm'' in question, in this case occupied by women.
But an appeals court, ruling in the website's favor, found that Voyeurdorm's customers weren't gathering at the Tampa home -- or anywhere else in Tampa. ''As a practical matter, zoning restrictions are indelibly anchored in particular geographic locations,'' the appeals court wrote. With Voyeurdorm, the court added, 'the public offering occurs over the Internet in `virtual space.' ''
Judge Cooke found that the same logic applied to Miami's Cocodorm. City legal staff tried to argue that wording differences between the Miami and Tampa ordinances meant the situations weren't identical, but Cooke disagreed.
''This argument must fail,'' Cooke, in her Jan. 27 ruling, wrote of the city's defense. While acknowledging Miami's ordinance did not contain the exact same language as Tampa's, Cooke wrote ``it is nonetheless its functional equivalent.''

Here's my question -- did Cooke's law clerks have to visit the site?

Judge Marcia Cooke speaks at the Federal Bar luncheon

While everyone else is wasting the day looking at "Kristen" pictures, we here at the SDFLA blog have pictures from yesterday's federal bar luncheon. Judge Cooke gave a very entertaining speech and demonstrated why she is so well liked by just about everyone who appears before her.

Reminder -- Judge Marcia Cooke to speak tomorrow at lunch

At the Banker's Club at noon.

Cost is $35.

There are a few seats left. You can pay at the door if you RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

See you there!

Upcoming Federal Bar (and other) events

1. For Federal PDs and AUSAs only -- this Thursday 2/21 from noon-2pm, the Federal Bar Association (South Florida Chapter) will be having a panel on voir dire, including Judges Huck and Altonaga, AUSA Jeff Sloman, and AFPD Michael Caruso. The seminar is free and includes lunch. RSVP now to Lourdes Fernandez -- Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov -- because there are only a couple spots left.

2. Judge Cooke will be addressing the South Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association at the Banker's Club on March 12. The cost is $35. Please RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

3. The American Constitutional Society will be having a lunch time discussion on "Terrorism trials in the Article III Courts: Do they work?" featuring Marcos Jiminez, Michael Caruso and Jon Eisenberg; moderated by Richard Rosenthal. It's this Friday at the White & Case offices from 12:15 to 1:30. RSVP to Yannick Morgan at ymorgan@acslaw.org

Sad day

Typically I try to blog objectively and just report what is occurring in our District.

Today I can't do that because what happened this morning in magistrate court should not have happened.

Ben Kuehne, one of the pillars of this community, was indicted on money laundering charges. (read indictment here)

The government's theory of prosecution is outrageous. According to Jay Weaver's article:

Justice Department officials allege that Kuehne broke the law in 2002-03 when he vouched for millions paid by one-time Medellín drug lord Fabio Ochoa Vasquez to his high-profile trial attorney, Roy Black.
Kuehne's research gave Black the confidence -- in the form of legal opinion letters -- to accept payments totaling $3.7 million in fees and $1.3 million in expenses from Ochoa, according to several sources. Kuehne earned a portion of the expense payments -- $220,000 to $260,000 -- from Black for vetting Ochoa's payments.

**

Federal prosecutors face a formidable challenge in proving the case against Kuehne. They will have to prove that Kuehne knew Ochoa's money came from the sale of family assets to drug-trafficking associates...

This means that Ben had to have knowingly and willfully lied to Roy when telling him that the fee was okay. But what motive would Ben have for doing this? The money certainly wasn't enough to risk all of this. And Ben Kuehne of all people wouldn't have done these things for a million dollars. He's as ethical a person and lawyer as I know. I'll comment a lot more on the charges once I've had a chance to digest the indictment which was unsealed this morning in mag court.

We all know the real reason for this prosecution -- to discourage lawyers from taking these kinds of cases.

I went to court to support Ben. Half of the legal community was there to show their support. (He was released on a $250,000 personal surety bond.) Watching this unfold really stuck in my gut. I am still in disbelief. I actually had a case in the past with the lead prosecutor from DOJ. I went up to him to say hello and he exclaimed without prompting: "This is a wonderful day for the government." The comment was unnecessary and it sickened me.

I walked away from him thinking just the opposite. This is a terrible day for our country. Ben will be acquitted. But at what cost to him? And our justice system? Now, more than ever, it's critical to fight for our Constitution and our justice system.

In court, Ben commented to Magistrate Judge Brown: "since I am completely innocent of these charges, I am entering a plea of not guilty.'' He is represented by John Nields and Jane Moscowitz.

A bit of good news -- the case was assigned to Judge Marcia Cooke. As I have commented before, she is as fair and just.

UPDATED -- here's a DBR story about the case.

Jose Padilla sentenced

Judge Marcia Cooke sentenced Jose Padilla to just over 17 years today. Co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun received 15 years and eight months, and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, received 12 years and eight months.

The sentences mark huge victories for the defense because the advisory sentencing guideline range calculated by the judge was 30 years to life, and the government was asking for life.

Judge Cooke explained: “There is no evidence that these defendants personally, killed maimed or kidnapped.” She also said that she could consider Padilla's harsh treatment in the brig, over government objection.

With good time, Padilla will be released in about 12 years. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley objected to the sentences, calling them unreasonable. It will be interesting to see whether the government appeals the sentences after Gall and Kimbrough, the recent Supreme Court cases which give district courts very wide latitude in sentencing.

The over-under wasn't too far off, I guess.

UPDATE -- a number of people have emailed me asking about Judge Marcia Cooke. Here is original post I wrote about her when the case was first assigned to her division. I think she has demonstrated her independence and courage. Here is what I said about her back then in November 2005:

Perhaps DOJ looked at Judge Cooke's resume and saw that she was a Bush appointee and a former AUSA and thought that she would be a push-over for the feds. Froomkin (who I doubt has ever appeared before her) goes so far as to say "the government should not expect a hostile bench." If this is what the government thought, it is dead wrong. Judge Cooke -- to put it in Chief Justice Roberts' words -- calls a strike a strike and a ball a ball, and will not be pushed around by the government. She is known in this community as a fair judge who listens carefully to both sides and calls it right down the middle. She is well liked by criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors alike.

Poor Judge Cooke...

She has to deal with a lot of sentencing objections in Jose Padilla's case (via the AP).

Judge Cooke keeps jurors happy...

... according to the NY Times:

The trial is expected to last months, and Judge Cooke has taken pains to keep jurors happy — letting them take Monday off, for example, because one is getting married over the weekend and wants a break.

The tapes have been playing and there has been lots of dispute as to what an FBI agent could "translate":

The intercepted calls, many in Arabic, are crucial to the government’s case. But on the surface, they seem to have nothing to do with terrorism — one caller, for example, tells Mr. Hassoun of plans to go on a picnic and smell fresh air.
All week, defense lawyers fiercely protested the government’s plan to let an F.B.I. agent who led the investigation tell jurors his interpretation of such words, so-called code for terrorist activities. The agent, John T. Kavanaugh Jr., testified that the defendants spoke in code because they suspected their calls were being monitored.
Judge Marcia G. Cooke responded to the defense by limiting what Mr. Kavanaugh could say about the conversations and telling the jurors his interpretations were nonexpert opinions.

Friday, jurors heard Jose Padilla's voice for the first time:

Mr. Padilla mumbled and chuckled throughout the conversation played Friday, sometimes calling Mr. Hassoun “bro.” Mr. Hassoun appeared impatient, asking Mr. Padilla if he was “ready.”
“Inshallah, brother,” Mr. Padilla replied, using the Arabic for “God willing” and urging Mr. Hassoun to have patience. “You know, it’s going to happen.”

Trial resumes Tuesday.

Weekend reading...

Hope everyone had a nice holiday weekend.


The Wilk jury continues its deliberations tomorrow. The prosecution cannot be happy that they are still out and that they didn't come back quickly. The defense can't be happy that they were home over a long weekend where they would be pressured by family and friends to get it over with and convict. Ahhh, the stresses of having a jury out deliberating. There is nothing worse...

The Christian Science Monitor has been doing a very nice job covering the Padilla trial. Here's an article about the other two defendants in the case, Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi. And the article covers this fun exchange:


In testimony last week, FBI translator Majed Sam acknowledged that it was up to him to decide which conversations to translate. But he said he pursued no FBI agenda. "My goal is to translate everything in as accurate English as I can," he told the jury.
During cross-examination, Jayyousi defense lawyer Marshall Dore Louis asked Mr. Sam whether he was familiar with the American term "to cherry-pick."
"It means selecting what you want to select," Mr. Louis said.


Yes," Sam agreed.
At the conclusion of his cross-examination, Louis returned to that theme. He asked if Sam was familiar with other American terms: paint with a broad brush, stereotype, prejudice, bigotry.
Sam answered that he was familiar with each term.
The move appeared to be an effort to encourage the jury – made up of three African-Americans, four whites, and five Latinos – to closely scrutinize whether the government was using stereotypes and prejudice against Muslims to try to win convictions.
Later when the jury was excused for the day, Assistant US Attorney Russell Killinger complained to the judge about Louis's questions. "They were totally improper and uncalled for," he told US District Judge Marcia Cooke.
"I was a little surprised myself," the judge said.
Louis said he didn't mean to imply the translator was himself bigoted. His questions were intended to highlight the way the government is presenting its case.
"That's [an] argument" that can be presented later in the trial, the judge told Louis. "This witness didn't deserve those kinds of questions," she said.
Jeanne Baker, a lawyer for Hassoun, disagreed. "There is a right we have to advance our themes," she said.
Judge Cooke said the questions crossed the line into impermissible argument. "Everyone is on notice," she said.

Dore Louis has been no shrinking violet in this trial....

And here's the AP covering Judge Cooke, with only nice things to say of course...

Tom Langston?

That's the name used by the CIA agent who testified in disguise during yesterday's proceedings in Jose Padilla's trial. Jay Weaver reports:

The man who appeared in Miami federal court on Tuesday hid his identity as a CIA officer by using the alias ''Tom Langston'' and wearing a discreet disguise -- black-rimmed glasses along with a closely cropped beard.
Testifying as a witness in Jose Padilla's terror trial, he told jurors that only three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, an unnamed man in Afghanistan gave him a blue binder with dozens of documents.
Among them: a five-page form written in Arabic that would eventually lead federal investigators to conclude that Padilla had applied to join the al Qaeda terror network.

Here's the AP and the Sun-Sentinel report on the bizarre beginning to the trial.

They let this guy testify in disguise and I can't even bring my phone into the courtroom (it has a camera and is allowed in the building and in every other courtroom) or my briefcase (because it had a newspaper in it). I understand we need security but the lawyers are officers of the court.

My prior coverage of the disguise ruling can be read here. Judge Cooke has had another run-in with a witness wanting to wear an odd item to court. I loved how she handled that one!

Jose Padilla opening statements

Jose Padilla opening statements are today. There is a buzz in the legal community over the case, but I wonder if the general public has the same interest. You would think everyone would be following this trial, but I get the sense that it's a case of a lot of interest to us, but only of moderate interest to everyone else...

In any event, there are a zillion articles about the start of the case. Here's one by Vanessa Blum about Judge Marcia Cooke. (And here's a brief bio) Here's our initial coverage of Judge Cooke.

Good luck to the lawyers today. I'm sure everyone has those trial jitters, especially in this case.

Don't mess with Judge Cooke

Apparently a reporter from CBS radio tried to bring in a transmitting device to the overflow media room in the Jose Padilla trial to broadcast jury selection. Judge Cooke issues a rule to show cause as to why CBS should not be held in contempt of court.

From the Order (proving that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction):

On Tuesday, April 24, 2007, AT&T representatives presented themselves at this
Case 0:04-cr-60001-MGC Document 1018 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
courthouse with a work order to install an ISDN feed in the press overflow room. An ISDN feed
is a circuit-switched telephone network system designed to allow digital transmission of voice
and data over ordinary telephone lines. The United States Marshals Service contacted this Court to confirm authorization for the work order. The Court had not granted such authorization, and was unaware of any such work order having been issued to AT&T.
Further investigation revealed that a request had been made to the Clerk of Court for an
ISDN feed to be installed, but that request had been denied. It was then discovered that the
contact on the AT&T work order was Peter King, from CBS Radio, Orlando. Thus, it appears
that Peter King of CBS has violated this Court’s Order Regarding Media Conduct and Press
Media Room. [DE 979] . As Mr. King holds himself out to be an employee of the CBS network,
and not simply a local affiliate, it would also appear that CBS, through Mr. King’s actions, has
violated the Order as well.

Judge Cooke denies Jose Padilla's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct

Judge Cooke issued a blockbuster ruling late tonight, denying Jose Padilla's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct -- without conducting a hearing. She says she need not conduct a hearing because she is denying the motion on legal grounds, accepting all allegations made by Padilla regarding torture as true.

UPDATE -- HERE IS THE ORDER (thanks to Discourse.net for posting -- I still haven't figured out how to do that!)

Here is the rationale from the concluding paragraphs of the 12 page order (lots of lengthy footnotes omitted):

First, the fact that the governmental conduct occurred at a time and place removed from the crimes charged makes the remedy Padilla is seeking considerably more attenuated and arbitrary. Short of resorting to a ‘two wrongs make a right’ judicial process, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain how the remedy sought emanates from the infirmity defendant describes. This is considerably distinguishable from a government entrapment scenario, where the crime that the defendant is charged with is the crux of the outrageous government conduct claim.

Second, the outrageous conduct occurred while Padilla was under military control at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. At this time, Padilla was being held under Presidential orders in connection with his enemy combatant status and had not been charged with the crimes he is currently facing. This further attenuates Padilla’s outrageous government conduct claim. Even if Padilla’s due process rights were violated while being held at the Naval Brig as an enemy combatant, he fails to explain how this violation should result in the dismissal of distinct crimes that he was not charged with at that point.

Third, Mr. Padilla fails to explain why suppressing governmental use of any evidence obtained from him at the Naval Brig is insufficient for purposes of this trial. In his motion, Padilla acknowledges that the government has already averred not to seek introduction of any of the Naval Brig evidence at trial. Despite summarily rejecting this remedy as “clearly inadequate,” Padilla fails to support this contention or explain why his requested remedy is more appropriate. In fact, in his motion, Padilla relies heavily on United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d. Cir. 1974), a case where the Second Circuit sanctions this very approach. Padilla’s Motion concedes that “the court in Toscanino noted that many cases involving due process violations center on unlawful government acquisition of evidence and that, in those instances, the proper remedy would be the exclusion of the tainted evidence.” Def. Mot. at 11.

Mr. Padilla fails to present a cognizable claim of outrageous government conduct entitling him to dismissal of the indictment. The objectionable conduct Padilla claims violated his due process rights occurred during his military detainment in isolation of the crimes charged. Padilla also fails to adequately explain why excluding any unlawfully obtained evidence would not be an appropriate remedy in this case. Applying the exclusionary rule to bar inclusion of any illegally obtained evidence would sufficiently satisfy due process concerns. This may ultimately be a moot point since the government has averred not to utilize any Naval Brig evidence in its case. However, should the government decide to make use of any such evidence, an appropriate hearing will be scheduled to determine to what extent it is admissible.

I'm sure the government is breathing a big sigh of relief this morning. The last thing it wanted were these allegations to be aired in open court. What I'm wondering is -- if torture isn't outrageous government conduct, then what is? Perhaps we should just do away with the doctrine altogether. Padilla now how issue #1 -- and a very interesting one at that -- for his appeal if he loses at trial.

UPDATE -- MSM is catching up. The AP report is here.

The "light disguise" trend

After asking for its witnesses to testify in "light disguise" in the Ze'ev Rosenstein case(coverage here, here and here), the feds are now asking for the same thing in the Jose Padilla case for an instructor for the CIA. (Judge Dimitrouleas had ruled that the Israeli agents could testify in light disguise but required them to use their real names. Rosenstein ended up pleading guilty, so this issue never came to light at trial and appeal).

In the Padilla case, the Government isn't asking for for the disguise because the agent is currently assigned overseas, but instead because he could be assigned overseas, according to a statement filed by Suzanne M. Fleischauer, information review officer for the CIA's clandestine service. "For CIA officers to effectively and clandestinely collect intelligence and conduct operations around the world, they cannot openly admit that they work for the CIA," Fleischauer said. "The safety of this covert CIA officer is of paramount concern because of the high-threat areas of the world in which he has worked."

Here is the AP coverage and the Herald coverage.

"Methinks the lady doth protest too much"

That was Judge Cooke in response to prosecutors strenuous objection to allowing Jose Padilla's jailors to testify at this week's competency hearing. I believe the hearing is Friday, and it's going to be a doozy.

Whenever I hear that someone strenuously objected, I think of the scene in A Few Good Men when Demi Moore loses and objection and responds by telling the judge that she strenuously objects. Her co-counsel, Lt. Weinberg, says to her after court: "I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."