Justice Scalia called "friend" of criminal defendants...

...by the LA Times. So there, Rumpole. Check it out:

Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court's most outspoken and combative conservative, is not often described as friendly to criminals.

But in recent years, Scalia has led an unusual pro-defendant faction at the high court in reversing convictions for murder, drug dealing, wife beating and drunken driving.

Next up in early December is a Chicago rapist who claims his 6th Amendment right to confront his accusers was violated because prosecutors did not put on the witness stand a lab technician from Maryland who conducted the DNA test that sent him to prison.

This claim might have been a loser even during the court's long-past liberal era. But with the relentless Scalia leading the charge, it may well succeed, a prospect that worries prosecutors and crime lab directors across the nation.

Sometimes, Scalia's insistence on following the "original" Constitution leads to unexpected results. And for him, there are no shades of gray and no halfway measures.

The 6th Amendment to the Constitution says the "accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him." To Scalia, this clause not only gives defendants the right to challenge actual witnesses, but also the right to bar testimony from all those "witnesses" who did not or cannot testify in court. He takes this view even if the witness is dead.

Three years ago, Scalia led the court in reversing the murder conviction of a Los Angeles man who shot and killed his girlfriend. A police officer testified the victim had reported that Dwayne Giles threatened to kill her. Scalia said that testimony violated Giles' rights because he could not confront or cross-examine her.

"We decline to approve an exception to the Confrontation Clause unheard of at the time of the founding," Scalia said for 6-3 majority. This went too far for liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer.

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)

Rothstein feeder to pay $830 million

The Sun-Sentinel has more here:

The Fort Lauderdale hedge fund manager who was the largest feeder to Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein has agreed to give up much of his wealth as part of a settlement with bankruptcy attorneys.


The settlement agreement by George Levin and his Banyon investment entities — which funneled $830 million into Rothstein's $1.4 billion investment fraud — was filed late Monday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.


It does not spell out which assets Levin has agreed to sell and turn over to the trustee for Rothstein's now-bankrupt law firm, but Levin and his wife get to keep their $4.2 million Fort Lauderdale home and roughly $750,000 in personal possessions, according to the agreement.

In other news, Rumpole has admitted that he was wrong and "[o]f course Mr. Markus is right." 

Wednesday news and notes

1.  Judge Lenard accepted the guilty pleas today in the stolen patient record case.  (via Miami Herald).  We previously wrote about the case here, when the parameters of the deal were questioned.

2.  Jeffrey Epstein is a free man.  And the Daily Beast covers the case here, with video from his depo in which he walks out after being asked about the shape of his penis. 

3.  And, Rony Seikaly has a new single.

4.  Rumpole says never ever promise that your client will take the stand.  He's way wrong.  There are no absolute trial rules.  Now of course Blago's lawyers messed up by promising that he would testify and then not delivering.  But that doesn't mean you should never do it. 

Beat LA (and Rumpole)

Running around like crazy the last few days, and then I see this straw man put up and knocked down by Rumpole on his blog. I will respond when I have a minute.

In the meantime, let me say that I obviously do not agree with Scalia's dissent in Holland, and I have not taken the position that Scalia is friendly to criminal defendants -- what I have said is that Scalia is the best friend that criminal defendants have on the Supreme Court (here's one of the first posts that got the debate started). That's not such high praise when the voting patterns of this Court are examined.

Anyway, more on this later when I have time to respond, and congrats to Todd Scher for the big victory.

Here are the 5 opinions that were decided today.

The last week of good traffic

Gridlock starts next week with the start of school...

Looks like the storms are gonna miss us. Rumpole has been updating us all weekend on the positions of the storms. A tip for the future: keep an eye on the Herbert boxes.

The blawgosphere is aflutter over the possibility of free PACER. (Thanks to MDO for the tip, but Miguel, shouldn't you be studying for the fantasy football draft?) I'm all for free access to the courts, but I've heard grumbling among lawyers that electronic filing has led to their pleadings being stolen and that making PACER free will lead to even more stealing. Isn't that the greatest form of flattery? SFLawyers makes passing reference to lawyers looking at Iqbal motions to dismiss. Is it me, or is SFL oddly obsessed with Iqbal. Yes, we had a Paris obsession here a couple weeks back, and that was strange, but this Iqbal craze is, well, strange.

Rick Bascuas blogs about the en banc 11th Circuit looking into sentencing practices after giving discretion back to district judges. Apparently, the government isn't happy about below guideline sentences. Shock.

Anyone trying any cases this week?

SCALIA.

Rumpole, check out the 2 criminal law opinions this morning. Justice Scalia wrote a 5-4 opinion (Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts) in favor of a criminal defendant on a confrontation clause issue and in another case (Safford v. Redding), joined Justice Souter's opinion in favor of a high school student challenging a strip search on Fourth Amendment grounds. More to follow...

(Still waiting on my $100).

Justice Scalia and Rumpole

Rumpole is getting all hot and bothered by Justice Scalia's recent decision in Montejo v. Louisiana, overruling Michigan v. Jackson. I don't agree with the result either, but I have taken issue with Rumpole's attack on Scalia as a "dangerous" Justice and with Rumpole's defense of stare decisis.

As an initial matter, as a criminal defense lawyer, Rumpole should be cheering Scalia, who is by far the most friendly Justice to criminal defendants. I'm sure I'm forgetting some of his recent defense friendly opinions, but to name a few:

• Crawford v. Washington -- Justice Scalia breathed life back into the Confrontation Clause and did away with some really bad cases allowing prosecutors to get away with convictions based on hearsay.
• Blakely v. Washington (Apprendi, Booker, etc) -- criminal practitioners rejoiced when Scalia started the revolt against the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines.
• Arizona v. Gant -- Scalia rules in favor of criminal defendant on 4th amendment issue concerning a car search, overruling NY v. Belton.
• Begay v. United States -- finding in a concurring opinion that DUI was not a violent felony based on the rule of lenity.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez -- Scalia finds (5-4) that a criminal defendant has a right to counsel of his choice. This was his quote at oral argument: “I don’t want a ‘competent’ lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win.”
• United States v. Santos -- Scalia finds that the money laundering statute is ambiguous and rules for criminal defendant that it means proceeds, not profits.
• I'll end with Sorich v. United States in which Scalia dissents from denial of cert on honest services case. Here's part of his opinion:

[T]his Court has long recognized the“basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Bouie v. City ofColumbia, 378 U. S. 347, 350 (1964). There is a serious argument that §1346 is nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct. But "the notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today," Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 476 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and for good reason. It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail. “How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Rybicki, supra, at 160 (Jacobs, J., dissenting). . . . It may be true that petitioners here, like the defendants in other “honest services” cases, have acted improperly. But “[b]ad men, like good men, are entitled to be tried and sentenced in accordance with law.” Green v. United States, 365 U. S. 301, 309 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). In light of the conflicts among the Circuits; the longstanding confusion over the scope of the statute; and the serious due process and federalism interests affected by the expansion of criminal liability that this case exemplifies, I would grant the petition for certiorari and squarely confront both the meaning and the constitutionality of §1346. Indeed, it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail.

(A couple weeks after Scalia wrote this dissent, the Court granted cert in the Conrad Black case to figure out the reach of the honest services statute. I'd bet Rumpole that Scalia will rule for Black, but he still hasn't paid me on the last $100...)

And these are just a few off the top of my head in the last few years. I'm happy when Justice Scalia isn't a prisoner to stare decisis. If he was, we wouldn't have Crawford, Blakely, Gant, etc. I'm glad he's questioning cases that have been on the books for years because the law is more pro-government right now than it has ever been. The pendulum has started swinging back the other way, and it's due in part to Justice Scalia. Yes, criminal defendants are going to lose some too -- like Michican v. Jackson -- but I'll take the above cases with that one. (Has any lawyer ever even filed a Jackson motion to suppress?)

If I had to rank the Justices in order of defense friendly, here's my list:

Scalia, Stevens, Souter (for another couple weeks), Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.

News & Notes

1. "Former Miami-Dade teacher gets 7 years for enslaving Haitian girl" via the Sun-Sentinel. From the intro of Vanessa Blum's article:
A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a South Florida woman to seven years and three months in prison for keeping a teenage girl from Haiti in servitude for six years.Maude Paulin, 52, a former Miami-Dade County middle school teacher, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work and harboring an illegal immigrant.Before being sentenced, Paulin apologized to U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr., saying she had good intentions when she arranged to bring Simone Celestin from Haiti to live with her family."I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin said. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done."

2. "26 charged in migrant smuggling crackdown" via the Miami Herald. Jay Weaver reports:
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged 26 South Florida suspects with conspiring to smuggle Cuban migrants in yet another major crackdown on illegal crossings of the Florida Straits.
In the latest 12 indictments, the defendants are accused of trying to bring 225 migrants to South Florida.
Prosecutors also charged two other suspects, Yamil Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 34, and Roberto Boffil-Rivera, 35, with alien smuggling, unlawful possession of a firearm and lying to a federal agent.
After the five Cuban migrants reached U.S. shores on April 21, Rodriguez demanded $25,000 payment, prosecutors said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Miami-Dade police detectives recorded two meetings between one migrant and Rodriguez, investigators said. On May 1, he paid Rodriguez $2,000. Six days later, he paid him an additional $3,000.
But Rodriguez was unsatisfied and threatened to shoot the migrant, police said. Rodriguez and Rivera were later arrested. Investigators found a loaded KAHR PM-40 firearm in one of the suspect's cars and pictures of Rivera holding the weapon.

3. Rumpole reports on trying to navigate state court:
We recently received an email from a prominent federal defense attorney who noted his/her travails on a recent Monday morning outing to our humble building. There was no place to park and after a half an hour of circling they parked in the median on a grass strip several blocks away.They got to the courtroom only to be told the prosecutor they had a meeting with had decided not to show up for work that day.A quick trip to the restroom (a clear rookie mistake) produced a few untimely steps in human liquid waste that was on the floor.And finally, beaten down by the heat, the lines, the smelly and dirty bathrooms not to mention the ridiculous belief that the prosecutor who agreed to meet them in court had any intention of actually showing up, they trudged back to their car, tie askew, bathed in sweat, actually longing for Judge Dimeitrouleas’s rocket docket, or for a quick arraignment and trial before Judge Huck, or a nice friendly sentencing before Judge Zlock.

4. "South Florida law firms hit by real estate slump, shed workers" via National Law Journal." Julie Kay explains:
In another sign of the hard times facing the legal industry, particularly in real-estate heavy South Florida, two local law firms — Holland & Knight and Shutts & Bowen — have laid off non-lawyer staffers. On a day that could be dubbed Black Friday in South Florida legal circles, Tampa-based Holland & Knight, one of Florida's largest and most venerable firms with 1,150 lawyers, laid off 70 staffers Friday, including legal secretaries, IT and accounting staff. No lawyers were laid off. The layoffs of about four employees in each of Holland's 17 offices represented 5% of Holland's non-lawyer workforce. Shutts & Bowen, a 200-lawyer, Miami-based firm, Friday laid off nine people, all entry level file clerks or paralegal clerks. No lawyers or legal secretaries were affected. The news comes on the heels of a decision announced internally Friday by Fort Lauderdale-based Becker & Poliakoff to temporarily and immediately chop all lawyer salaries by 12%. The firm, which is heavy in condo and real estate representation, said it was forced to take the action since clients are delaying payment in this lean economic environment.

Rumpole & Ashley Dupre

Rumpole has a funny post about the federal buildings here. From what I hear, there are trials scheduled in the new building in May... I'll believe it when I see it.

The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:

The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.

Not so good for her lawsuit...

UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.

Blogs...

...work.

Rumpole complained about lines getting into the state courthouse on Tuesday mornings following a Monday holiday. Judge Slom responded to the blog and attempted to address the problem...

D. Kyle Sampson

Although some of you thought that the trivia question below about D. Kyle Sampson was another April Fool's post, it was not. He actually tried a felon in possession case -- United States v. Heron Stepherson -- in the Southern District of Florida in March 2004. Judge Hurley presided and the local AUSA was Lothrop Morristhe. AFPD was Bob Adler.

Thanks to one of my favorite readers for the answer to the trivia question!

As for felon in possession cases, check out Rumpole's riff here regarding gun prosecutions in both state and federal court. He raises an issue that the Federal PDs have been complaining about for a long time. The problem is that the cases which permitted dual prosecutions were decided when the feds did not really pursue the run of the mill state gun or drug case. Now that it's common practice, those cases really should be reconsidered. Or better yet, the Justice Department should follow its "petite policy."

As for American Idol tonight, Sanjaya Malakar won't be voted off. My bet is on Phil Stacey or Haley Scarnato to go.

UPDATE -- here are portions of the "petite policy":

"The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

"This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. ...

"The first substantive prerequisite is that the matter must involve a substantial federal interest. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.230. Matters that come within the national investigative or prosecutorial priorities established by the Department are more likely than others to satisfy this requirement.

"The second substantive prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest. That presumption, however, may be overcome when there are factors suggesting an unvindicated federal interest."

United States Attorneys' Manual 9-2.031

Death Penalty trial to start this week

Vanessa Blum has a lengthy article about the Kenneth Wilk death penalty trial (SDFLA previous coverage here), which is to start this week in front of Judge Cohn. Apparently the defense is going to argue that Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense. They will not be able to argue that the victim, Todd Fatta, was using steroids. Here's the intro to the article:

In the beginning, it seemed like a routine operation. Roughly a dozen
Broward Sheriff's Office deputies arrived in the Fort Lauderdale neighborhood of
Coral Highlands on Aug. 19, 2004, to carry out an arrest warrant."Police!" they
yelled before breaking through the front door. "Warrant!"It was then, prosecutors will tell jurors, Kenneth Wilk crouched behind his kitchen counter with a Winchester 94 lever-action hunting rifle. When the officers entered, Wilk opened fire, killing Deputy Todd Fatta, 33, with a single shot to the chest.If convicted of first-degree murder, Wilk, 45, faces the death penalty. As his trial begins this week before U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort Lauderdale federal court, defense lawyers have no plans to dispute Wilk fired the shots that killed Fatta and wounded a second officer.Instead, the central question for jurors deciding Wilk's fate will be whether the gunfire was premeditated.Wilk's attorneys, Bill Matthewman and Rafael Rodriguez, have said they plan to argue it was not. They contend Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense.

I don't believe anyone from the SDFLA has ever been sentenced to death, but I'm not sure about this. Anyone know for sure?

VB was a busy bee the last couple days, with stories on the McCay brothers' sentencing (Michael McCay got 6 1/2 years and brother Robert got 15 months) and the sentencing of a doctor who worked at Mutual Benefits Corp (Clark Mitchell received 8 years).

And thanks to Rumpole for covering the story below. More at his blog.

Rumpole on our case

Now even our friends are telling us to mind our own business....

Here's Rumpole's take on the Judge Highsmith story in italics and my response in bold:

Everyone's favourite federal blogger- David O Markus- whose blog can be viewed by clicking on the link on this page- got himself and his blog into a spot of hot water the other day, by publishing the well researched rumor that Federal Judge Highsmith was retiring.

I'm glad I'm Rumpole's "favourite federal blogger" and that he links to us. But is it really a "rumor" when the Judge himself announced it open court?

Julie Kay from the Daily Business Review jumped on the bandwagon and wrote an article and before you can say "contempt" Chief Judge Zloch was issuing denials. Actually, everyone apparently had a good laugh about the whole episode,
and the mere fact Mr. Markus was seen sweeping the floor of Judge Zloch's courtroom the other day had nothing to do with Mr. Markus's ill advised venture into the land of rumor and innuendo. Leave that stuff to us we say.

Judge Zloch's floors weren't dirty at all, so it wasn't a big deal... Fine Rumpole, you are the gossip king (queen?) so we'll leave this stuff to you in the future.

As Muhammad Ali used to say- "Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see" and last we checked there was no known address for US Marshalls to appear at to take us into custody. Mr. Markus writes a great blog. But we think he is better off writing about the legislative histories of Federal Statutes and cheering on Judge Cooke in the Padilla case. In either event, it was nice to see that Rumpole isn't the only Florida legal blogger who needs counsel every now and then.

If we actually did need counsel, we'd hire Rumpole. What's the hourly rate these days?

Padilla trial continued

Judge Cooke continued the Padilla trial until April 16, 2007. This was done, in part, to allow for the mental evaluations to take place.

Picking up on one of Rumpole's recent riffs (read his comments and responses by a Herald reporter) regarding article headlines, here is the headline for a recent Sun-Sentinel article about the Padilla argument in the 11th Circuit: "Lawyers for terror suspects pessimistic as appeals court considers conspiracy charge." So I read the article looking for quotes from the lawyers saying they were pessimistic. There wasn't one! The article, by Vanessa Blum, was well-written and informative, but the headline (which I'm sure wasn't written by her) was absolutely wrong and had nothing to do with the article. How does this happen?