Louis Robles gets 15 years

This was the obvious result after the judge rejected the agreement of the parties to a 10 year deal. I still don't believe a judge should reject a plea agreement worked out in our adversary system (previously discussed here and here). I wonder if the prosecutors still argued for 10 years at the sentencing hearing as they believed this was the appropriate sentence... I think the feds (or Judge Gold) should release Robles from the appellate waiver so that he can argue to the 11th Circuit that the judge's rejection of the deal was inappropriate. Wouldn't it be nice to get some clarity about this from the appellate court?

SDFLA Blog question of the day -- Why won't the government abandon its appellate waiver so that Robles can litigate (with the government's support) whether district judges should be permitted to reject plea agreements.

District news

1. The Robles plea was accepted. Lots of news stories everywhere about it. There is a 15 year cap, instead of the 10 year cap previously agreed to by the parties. It will be interesting to see whether the government argues that a 10 year sentence is reasonable, notwithstanding the guidelines which I suspect will be a lot higher.

2. The Liberty City 7 case is underway. Again, lots of news stories about the jury selection and the start of the trial. Props to Judge Lenard for conducting a thorough voir dire. It looks like it will take a couple weeks to pick the jury in this case. That is appropriate considering the type of case it is and the press that has come with the case.

3. Last night Milton Hirsch had a constitution day party at his office. Here's the Joan Fleischman column about it. The office was packed with lawyers and judges. Federal judge sighting -- Judge Ungaro read the 15th Amendment, which states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

I read the Fourth Amendment. Does anyone remember that one?

UPDATED -- Here's a picture of Judge Ungaro, Judge Alex, his daughter, and psychologist Merry Haber:

Another high profile trial to start this week

This time it's USA v. Louis Robles. Here's Julie Kay's preview of the trial.

I'm sure both sides (defense -- Hector Flores; government -- Mike Davis and Luis Perez) were working hard this weekend, even though they had settled the case months ago. The problem is that the judge wouldn't accept the 10 year deal agreed on by the parties because he believed that the deal was too sweet for Robles, who turns 60 next year.

We've discussed this issue a number of times and we asked whether the government would simply dismiss the indictment and permit Robles to plead guilty to a 10 year count (or two five year counts). Well, it appears that the answer is no. So if Robles loses this trial, he will certainly appeal on this issue, and it looks like a good one.

So SDFLA readers, is this trial worth it? The government doesn't want it. The victims don't want it. The defense doesn't want it. The receiver doesn't want it. The trial will last about a month, costing the system six figures.

By the way, can you imagine if Robles walks?

Executive branch vs. Judicial branch

The Louis Robles case has pitted prosecutors against the judiciary. The government and the defense had worked out a deal for Robles -- 10 years in prison plus restitution -- and that deal had the blessing of the receiver and almost all of the victims.

Judge Gold, however, won't accept the deal, saying it's too lenient. The government recently filed a 16 page motion for reconsideration explaining why the plea made sense. Judge Gold denied that motion, which now leaves the government with two choices. It can try a case that neither party wants to try. Or it can dismiss the counts that carry more than a 10 year maximum, leaving Judge Gold with no choice but to sentence Robles to 10 years, even after a trial.

Oftentimes, defense lawyers complain that sentencing is driven by prosecutors and that it should be left to judges to sentence, not executive officers. In this case, prosecutorial discretion is important in capping the sentence.

Any thoughts on what the U.S. Attorney's office should do? Should they defer to the judge or stand up for their position?

Here are previous posts on the Robles case. Our initial coverage of the issue is here. The DBR covers the story today but there is no free link yet.

Louis Robles plea deal rejected

Judge Alan Gold refused to accept the deal agreed to by prosecutors and defense lawyers which would have resulted in Louis Robles, the 59 year old asbestos lawyer, serving 10 years in federal prison (previous coverage here). The deal also had the blessing of Tom Tew, the receiver in charge of getting victims paid.

Query -- does a federal judge have the power to reject this sort of deal? Because this is a charge bargain deal, can't the government just dismiss the other counts on its own, leaving only the ten year maximum count? I think the real question is whether the government will have the heart to do this after Judge Gold has said he will not approve the deal. If in our adversarial system of justice the prosecution believes that a deal is fair, should a judge step in? Please give your thoughts in the comments.

This is just another odd turn in this very odd case. Just last week, Judge Gold took Robles into custody because Robles' girlfriend said he was hiring a pilot to flee overseas. The government stated that they did not believe that the girlfriend was being truthful.

Louis Robles taken into custody

Julie Kay breaks this story:

A federal judge has thrown disbarred Miami attorney Louis Robles back in jail after Robles' girlfriend told the court he was planning to flee the country before finalizing a criminal plea deal on charges that he stole millions from his clients. Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Alan Gold in Miami issued an arrest warrant and ordered Robles’ $1 million bond revoked, calling him a flight risk. Robles, a nationally known Miami mass torts lawyer, was placed in federal prison May 11, days before Gold was set to decide whether to accept a plea deal for a 10-year sentence that was worked out between Robles and prosecutors.

The big question now is whether Judge Gold will accept the 10 year plea...

No thanks

As posted yesterday, Louis Robles was supposed to plead guilty this morning in front of Judge Gold. The parties had agreed to 10 years in prison.

Well, not so fast. Judge Gold did not accept the deal today and rescheduled it in a month. Judge Gold has rejected plea agreements before, notably in the Al Gutman case.

At last week's symposium on ethics at the University of Miami, there was a panel discussion with 5 judges who were asked if they ever rejected agreed to pleas. They all responded that they did not. Should judges reject plea agreements? Comments?

Pretty pleas(e)

Lots of pleas being reported today. Former asbestos lawyer Louis Robles is taking ten years. And the Hollywood cops are pleading to a min/man ten years, with the hope of a cooperation reduction.

Think about where you were *ten years* ago. I think all of us forget how freaking long that is.

News and Notes

1. The New York Times reports on Padilla here. The Government has been taking some hits in the press recently on this case and this is another example.

2. "Compensation: Empty-handed": That's the headline in this DBR article about Tom Tew's lawsuit against the Florida bar being dismissed with prejudice in federal court. "About 4,000 asbestos clients of disbarred attorney Louis Robles will have to find another way to recoup the $13.5 million their former lawyer stole from them after a federal judge threw out their claim against The Florida Bar. In an unusual class action suit filed last January, the plaintiffs claimed a security fund maintained by the Bar to compensate clients victimized by dishonest attorneys applied to them, and their claims should be paid in full. The suit argued that the Bar’s failure to pay a lump sum denied the plaintiffs their due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. But U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. of Georgia disagreed in a dismissal order Dec. 22. He denied the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, barring them from re-filing. The judge, who handled the case after the recusal of Miami judges, concluded the 11th Amendment gives the Bar immunity because it is a regulatory arm of the state Supreme Court."