Everything is a crime these days

The Supreme Court decided to hear a case involving the Stolen Valor Act; i.e., whether it is a crime to lie about prior military service:

The court said Monday it will rule on the constitutionality of a law that makes it a federal crime for people to claim falsely, either in writing or aloud, that they have been awarded the Medal of Honor, a Silver Star, Purple Heart or any other military medal.

The Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006, apparently has been used only a few dozen times, but the underlying issue of false claims of military heroism has struck a chord in an era in which American soldiers are fighting two wars.

At the same time, the justices have issued a series of rulings in recent terms in favor of free expression, striking down California's violent video restrictions and a federal law involving cruelty to animals. It also upheld the right of protesters to picket military funerals with provocative, even offensive, messages.

The federal appeals court in California struck down the military medals law on free speech grounds, and appeals courts in Colorado, Georgia and Missouri are considering similar cases.

The Obama administration is arguing that the law "serves a crucial purpose in safeguarding the military honors system." The administration also says the law is reasonable because it only applies to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings also have limited First Amendment protection for false statements, the government said.

This was the case that Judge Kozinski said went too far because everyone lies:

Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying. We lie to protect our privacy (“No, I don’t live around here”); to avoid hurt feelings (“Friday is my study night”); to make others feel better (“Gee you’ve gotten skinny”); to avoid recriminations (“I only lost $10 at poker”); to prevent grief (“The doc says you’re getting better”); to maintain domestic tranquility (“She’s just a friend”); to avoid social stigma (“I just haven’t met the right woman”); for
career advancement (“I’m sooo lucky to have a smart boss like you”); to avoid being lonely (“I love opera”); to eliminate a rival (“He has a boyfriend”); to achieve an objective (“But I love you so much”); to defeat an objective (“I’m allergic to latex”); to make an exit (“It’s not you, it’s me”); to delay the inevitable (“The check is in the mail”); to communicate displeasure (“There’s nothing wrong”); to get someone off your back (“I’ll call you about lunch”); to escape a nudnik (“My mother’s on the other line”); to namedrop (“We go way back”); to set up a surprise party (“I need help moving the piano”); to buy time (“I’m on my way”); to keep up appearances (“We’re not talking divorce”); to avoid taking out the trash (“My back hurts”); to duck an obligation (“I’ve got a headache”); to maintain a public image (“I go to church every Sunday”); to make a point (“Ich bin ein Berliner”); to save face (“I had too much to drink”); to humor (“Correct as usual, King Friday”); to avoid embarrassment (“That wasn’t me”); to curry favor (“I’ve read all your books”); to get a clerkship (“You’re the greatest living jurist”); to save a dollar (“I gave at the office”); or to maintain innocence (“There are eight tiny reindeer on the rooftop”).

And we don’t just talk the talk, we walk the walk, as reflected by the popularity of plastic surgery, elevator shoes, wood veneer paneling, cubic zirconia, toupees, artificial turf and cross-dressing. Last year, Americans spent $40 billion on cosmetics—an industry devoted almost entirely to helping people deceive each other about their appearance. It doesn’t matter whether we think that such lies are despicable or cause more harm than good. An important aspect of personal autonomy
is the right to shape one’s public and private persona by choosing when to tell the truth about oneself, when to conceal and when to deceive. Of course, lies are often disbelieved or discovered, and that too is part of the pull and tug of social
intercourse. But it’s critical to leave such interactions in private hands, so that we can make choices about who we are. How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter if lying is not an option?

While the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing that case, the Florida Supreme Court is going to decide whether loud music is a crime or not:

The Florida Supreme Court will soon rule on whether regulating car stereo volume is a violation of drivers' First Amendment rights, possibly eliminating local noise ordinances in one fell swoop.

The court announced Monday that it will hear arguments in State vs. Catalano in February, a case that began when police in St. Petersburg ticketed a corporate lawyer for exceeding the noise limit by blasting a little Justin Timberlake at 7:34 a.m. on his way to work.

Richard T. Catalano fought the $73.50 ticket, and he's fought it all the way to highest levels of state law.

Really Mr. Catalano? Blasting Justice Timberlake?!

In other news, Cain is polling ahead of Obama...

Monday baby!

A couple quick items to start off your week:

1. Cameras in the federal courtroooms in the SDFLA! But only in civil cases for now. We are part of a pilot program for 14 districts. From the press release:

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage.

Districts volunteering for the pilot must follow guidelines (pdf) adopted by CACM. The pilot is limited to civil proceedings in which the parties have consented to recording.

No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge, and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. The recordings will be made publicly available on www.uscourts.gov and on local participating court websites at the court's discretion.

The pilot recordings will not be simulcast, but will be made available as soon as possible. The presiding judge can choose to stop a recording if it is necessary, for example, to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses, preserve the dignity of the court, or choose not to post the video for public view. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is prohibited, as is coverage of jurors or alternate jurors.

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage. In the early 1990s the Judicial Conference conducted a pilot program permitting electronic media coverage of civil proceeding in six district courts and two courts of appeals.

As I have previously argued on this blog, I see no good reason why cameras shouldn't be allowed in federal court. The public should see what goes on in our courthouses...

2. The NY Times reviews the Supreme Court Term that just concluded. Justice Kennedy was in the majority more than any other Justice, 94% of the time, followed by the Chief Justice, 91%. Ginsburg brought up the rear.

3. Curt Anderson covers the interesting lawsuit between NASA and former astronaut Edgar Mitchell:

NASA is suing former astronaut Edgar Mitchell to get back a camera that went to the moon on the Apollo 14 mission — a historic device Mitchell apparently tried to sell recently at an auction.

The lawsuit filed in federal court contends that the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera is NASA's property and there are no records showing it was transferred to Mitchell. NASA calls Mitchell, one of only 12 humans to walk the lunar surface, "a former NASA employee who is exercising improper dominion and control" over the camera.

"The United States has made numerous requests to defendant and defendant's counsel for return of the NASA camera to no avail," Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Macchiaroli wrote in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

"All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party," Macchiaroli added.

Mitchell, 80, has a home in the Lake Worth, just south of West Palm Beach, but a phone listing for him was disconnected. His attorney did not immediately respond to a phone message and email. A message was also left with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded in 1972 as an organization dedicated to exploring mysteries of the human mind and universe.

NASA contends in the lawsuit that it learned in March that the British auction house Bonhams was planning a "Space History Sale" that included an item labeled "movie camera from the lunar surface." Bonhams also provided a more detailed technical description and four photos of the camera.

The item, according to the auction house description, "came directly from the collection of Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell." The camera was one of two that went to the moon's surface on the mission, during which Mitchell and Alan Shepard spent about nine hours collecting 95 pounds of lunar samples.

Reuben Cahn goes to DC

Friend of the District Reuben Cahn argued before the Supreme Court this week in Tapia v. United States. Reuben is the former Chief Assistant Federal Defender of this District, and the current Defender in San Diego.

The issue in the case is: May a court give a defendant a longer prison sentence to promote the defendant’s rehabilitation?

Here's the transcript of the oral argument.

ScotusBlog has a summary of the argument. Here's a section on Reuben:

On appeal, Tapia argued unsuccessfully that Section 3582 of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 prohibited a judge from basing the length of her sentence on a rehabilitative goal. That provision provides: “The court, in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation.”

Appearing on behalf of Alejandra Tapia, attorney Reuben Cahn relied on the text of Section 3582 to argue that the plain meaning and structure of the Act clearly prohibited a judge from lengthening a sentence to promote rehabilitation. Cahn noted that the Act stripped federal judges of their power to require federal prisoners take part in specific prison programs, such as the drug treatment program. “That structure makes sense only because Congress intended that defendants should no longer be sent to prison for purposes of rehabilitation,” Cahn said.

Several Justices asked Cahn how a reviewing court can tell whether a judge merely lengthened the sentence that he would have otherwise given based solely on rehabilitation, or whether the judge instead simply mentioned rehabilitation but in fact sentenced the defendant based on factors such as deterrence, incapacitation, and punishment. For example, Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the district court’s comments in sentencing Tapia could be interpreted in this light; Cahn countered, however, that the judge’s comments were clear. Sotomayor also asked whether Tapia’s rule was tantamount to requiring a judge to use “talismanic words” to make clear the court would have imposed the same sentence without regard to rehabilitation.

Reuben has a couple things going for him -- He is arguing that the 9th Circuit should get reversed and the SG agrees with his position.

Please raise your hand if you'd like to speak

Sheesh, the Supreme Court Justices are getting annoying, no?

Here's Adam Liptak about how oral argument has turned into sniping among the Justices:

If you didn’t know it was a Supreme Court argument, you might think you were seeing a catastrophically overbooked cable television show.

The justices of late have been jostling for judicial airtime in a sort of verbal roller derby. Consider an argument last month about the right to counsel. About 15 minutes in, Justice Stephen G. Breyer tried to ask a question. The effort failed, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg jumped in. A half-hour passed before Justice Breyer had another chance, and now his attempt was interrupted by Justice Antonin Scalia, who said Justice Breyer was asking irrelevant questions. Then Justice Scalia pressed a point that did not interest Justice Breyer. As the lawyer tried to answer Justice Scalia, Justice Breyer stopped him. “Skip that one,” Justice Breyer said of Justice Scalia’s question.

Earlier, as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was trying to get a word in edgewise, Justice Scalia succeeded in handing off the ball to a frequent ally, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “Maybe Justice Alito can ask his question,” Justice Scalia said as he finished making his own point.

Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, was caught in the cross-fire. He was answering a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor when Chief Justice John G. Roberts tried to interrupt. “Counsel,” the chief justice said. Mr. Waxman kept talking, which seemed to irritate the chief justice. “Counsel!” the chief justice repeated, now in a raised voice. (The exclamation point is in the official transcript.) Mr. Waxman was contrite. “Mr. Chief Justice, I’m sorry,” he said.

Supreme Court to issue many opinions today

There are 24 pending cases and not much time left -- the Court closes down at the end of June. It has issued a whopping 53 opinions this year... (It's unbelievable how few cases the modern Supreme Court hears).

The Court will be issuing a number of opinions today. I am running around this morning, but check in at ScotusBlog at 10am (they will have a live feed) for the list of opinions and then we can talk about them this afternoon.

UPDATE -- Only 4 decisions decided today. From ScotusBlog:


In Dolan v. United States (09-367), the Court affirms, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The vote is 5-4, with a dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.

Holding: A sentencing court that has missed the 90-day deadline may nevertheless order restitution, at least in some circumstances.
In Holland v. Florida (09-5327), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Breyer. The vote is 7-2. Justice Alito concurs in part and in the judgment, while Justice Scalia dissents, joined in part by Justice Thomas.

Holding: The Court permits equitable tolling of the habeas corpus filing deadline under the AEDPA.
In Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The vote is unanimous, but Justice Sotomayor files a concurrence joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.

Holding: An individual who wins a case against the federal government and recovers attorney’s fees can have those offset if that individual owes a debt to the government.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), the Court reverses, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous, though Justices Scalia and Thomas each file opinions concurring in the judgment only.

Holding: Second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.

More on Scalia vs. Alito

I've often said that Justice Scalia is the most criminal-defense friendly Justice, while Justice Alito is the least. More support for this argument from yesterday's opinion in USA v. Curtis Johnson. The Court ruled 7-2 that a “violent felony” under federal law requires the use of physical violence, thereby reversing and remanding the lower court which found that a misdemeanor battery counted. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, while Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas. The full opinion is here. The case came out of the Middle District of Florida, and I was lucky enough to attend the Supreme Court argument. (Here are my comments from after the argument).

It's always fun reading a Scalia opinion. Here's a taste from one footnote:

Even further afield is the dissent’s argument, post, at 2–3, that since §924(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires conduct that "presents a serious potential riskof physical injury to another," §924(e)(2)(B)(i) must not. That is rather like saying a provision which includes (i) apples and (ii) overripe oranges must exclude overripe apples. It does not follow.

"On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice"

That's Tom Goldstein over at ScotusBlog, predicting that Justice Stevens will retire and that SG Kagan will take his place. The whole thing is worth a read, but here's the conclusion:

So, here is how I expect the next few months to play out. In the spring, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement. In May or June, the President will nominate Elena Kagan. Explaining that her paper record is a thimble-full of Sonia Sotomayor’s, Senator Leahy will schedule hearings and Senator Reid will schedule a floor vote before the summer recess. The only theme that will give opponents any success is that she fails to express her views on anything. She will then be confirmed by a vote of 61 to 39. Ok, that last prediction about the exact vote could be off by a bit, but I feel pretty confident about everything else.

Supreme Court addresses case of the chocolate penis

This is not a joke -- check out Wellons v. Hall, a case that comes out of the 11th Circuit. Here's the AP and the ABA:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider the claims of a Georgia death row inmate who is challenging his rape and murder conviction based on some unusual chocolate gifts given to the trial judge and bailiff.
Some jurors hearing the case against defendant Marcus Wellons gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.
In a 5-4 ruling (PDF), the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion ordered the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider whether Wellons is entitled to discovery and a hearing in light of a high court ruling last year on behalf of an inmate who contended prosecutors withheld evidence of his drug addiction.
“Neither Wellons nor any court has ascertained exactly what went on at this capital trial or what prompted such ‘gifts,’ ” the Supreme Court wrote in the per curiam opinion. “Wellons has repeatedly tried, in both state and federal court, to find out what occurred, but he has found himself caught in a procedural morass.”
The court said that defense counsel did not learn until after the trial about unreported ex parte contacts between jurors and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff planned a reunion, and that jurors gave the chocolate gifts to the judge and bailiff either during or immediately after the penalty phase of the trial.
“From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the Supreme Court said in the per curiam opinion. “The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner’s constitutional claims.”

Ah, that's just too good. In other news: Judge Jordan sentences the Crime Stoppers cop to two months.

And American Idol is back:

Justices Better at Precedent Than Prescience

That's the title to this interesting Adam Liptak NYTimes article. Liptak argues that the Supreme Court Justices aren't too good about making predictions. I particularly like the discussion of broadcasting federal court hearings. I think it's absurd that we don't allow cameras in the courtroom. From the article:

The Supreme Court’s main strength lies in adjudicating disputes based on things that have already happened. It is less good at predicting the future.
On Wednesday, for instance, it shut down plans to broadcast the same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco partly for fear that witnesses in the case would be harassed if their public testimony were made more public. That conclusion is known in the trade as speculation.
Consider first of all that we are talking about a trial held in open court and subject to intense press coverage. The witnesses are mostly paid experts whose views on the subject are already well known. “They’re not, after all, in the witness protection program testifying against Mafia bosses,” Eva Rodriguez wrote in The Washington Post.
Then add to the analysis that the additional coverage the court forbade was only closed-circuit transmissions to a few other federal courthouses around the country. (There had been talk of posting video on YouTube, but the idea was never approved and so was not before the Supreme Court.)
The people viewing the transmissions in the remote courthouses would have been barred from making recordings of the proceedings. Allowing the transmissions, Eugene Volokh wrote on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, was equivalent to “holding the trial in an extra large courtroom.”
“And most of the extra audience would be far from California,” Mr. Volokh added, “and therefore not especially likely to be able to effectively harass the witnesses in ways that turn on seeing the witness’s testimony.”
There were other grounds for the court’s 5-to-4 decision, including the majority’s sense that lower-court judges in California have twisted the procedural rules to allow video coverage, a point that resonated with Ms. Rodriguez and other commentators. But the court also grounded its ruling on a finding that opponents of same-sex marriage “have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result” from the transmissions.

Robe-itis?

There's been a bunch of funny exchanges this week in the Supreme Court. One tipster sent this one from the attorney's fees case:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Maybe we have a different perspective. You think the lawyers are responsible for a good result and I think the judges are.
(Laughter.)
MR. CLEMENT: And maybe your perspective's changed, Your Honor.
(Laughter.)

I think most lawyers think that the best judges are the ones that remember what it was like to practice....

While we're off topic, let's take a look at Rick Bascuas' entertaining blog, where he claims that Obi Wan was the hero of Star Wars. Rick, what about Han Solo? R2-D2? Come on...



And as we stray even more off-topic: any Gleeks out there?

Glee - Don't Stop Believe

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.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court

So I snuck out a bit early from my meeting today and went over to the Supreme Court. I sat in the attorney room for the tail end of the Stevens case, which addressed whether the First Amendment trumped the statute prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty. From what I heard, the case will be 8-1 in favor of the criminal defendant Stevens, holding that Section 48 -- prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty -- is unconstitutional. The one Justice that seemed to say that Congress could pass such a statute was Alito.

Then I actually got into the courtroom and saw the oral argument in Johnson v. United States, a sentencing case from the Eleventh Circuit addressing whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.

It's amazing how close they let members of the Supreme Court bar sit to the Justices. It's like sitting in the front section of the movie theatre before the stadium seating starts. Very close. In this case Justices Scalia and Breyer were going at it. Scalia was clearly in favor of the criminal defendant and Breyer was clearly against. It will be a close case, probably 5-4... I would bet in favor of the defendant. Scalia used a hypo that made everyone laugh -- he asked whether if he told the government lawyer to shut up or he would flick her with his index finger, then would he be committing a violent felony. The government lawyer said yes... Any unwanted touching counted. Scalia didn't agree. Sotomayor was also an active questioner. Breyer kept asking about the "mine run" case, which sounded weird after the 4th or 5th time he used that term. He also took a jab at Scalia, saying if one were to read the legislative history of the statute, which some of his colleagues didn't do, it would be clear that Congress intended to cover this conduct. Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress could have been clearer and used the word battery if it wanted all battery cases covered.

UPDATE -- here's SCOTUSBlog's coverage of the Stevens' case.

PICTURES:

Supreme Court to hear dogfighting video case

Brian Maloney summarizes Stevens v. United States here. The issue is an interesting one: whether the First Amendment protects videos depicting animal cruelty. The Third Circuit found that the First Amendment did in fact protect such videos. From ScotusBlog:

The en banc Third Circuit overturned Stevens’s conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional on its face as a content-based prohibition on protected speech. The court first held that the speech regulated by § 48 is protected under the First Amendment. In its view, only one of the established categories of unprotected speech – child pornography – is even somewhat similar to the speech prohibited under § 48. The Supreme Court’s opinion in New York v. Ferber, holding that child pornography is not protected speech, set forth a number of factors to consider when determining whether to “create” a new category of unprotected speech. Applying these factors to the case at hand, the Third Circuit emphasized that although preventing cruelty to animals is “appealing . . . to our sensibilities,” it is not a compelling governmental interest in the context of free speech. Thus, it held, § 48 fails strict scrutiny because “it serves no compelling government interest, is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and does not provide the least restrictive means to achieve such an interest.”

I had a similar case involving cockfighting videos, detailed here but the case never got ruled on as we had to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. Shoot, this could have been my ticket to the Supreme Court...

News & Notes (UPDATED)

Lots going on today:

1. Another Mutual Benefits arrest: this time it's eye doctor Alan Mendelsohn. From Jay Weaver's article: Dr. Alan Mendelsohn, a Hollywood ophthalmologist who has raised millions for Florida politicians, surrendered to FBI agents on charges linked to his alleged efforts to thwart a 2000-05 state investigation into Mutual Benefits Corp., a Fort Lauderdale life insurance company.
An indictment charges Mendelsohn with 27 counts of wire and mail fraud and five counts of making false statements to federal agents related to a fraudulent fundraising and lobbying scheme, according to prosecutors.
Mendelsohn raised more than a half-million dollars from Mutual Benefits in 2003 to finance the hiring of a dozen lobbyists and make contributions to lawmakers, to stop legislation that would have tightened regulations on the so-called viatical industry. The industry sold life insurance policies of people dying of AIDS and other diseases.
The indictment alleges that Mendelsohn used a variety of false solicitations to raise money, including saying he had brokered illegal agreements with top Florida officials to close state and federal investigations. The indictment says that, in fact, no such agreements existed.
Mendelsohn, 51, is expected to appear in federal court in Fort Lauderdale Wednesday morning. His defense lawyer, John Keker of San Francisco, could not be reached for comment.

UPDATE -- The print version of the article, here, has lots more juicy details:

According to the indictment, Mendelsohn raised the $2 million from Mutual Benefits, an unidentified medical lab, a parimutuel business and a credit-card counseling firm during the past decade. Numerous medical colleagues of Mendelsohn's also contributed.

An unidentified ``accomplice'' assisted Mendelsohn in setting up the three political action committees and three corporations to move and disguise at least $624,000 in campaign funds paid to himself and others, according to the indictment.

Mendelsohn used some of the donations to pay $60,000 a month to his ``mistress'' from April 2003 to February 2005 for her assistance with the fundraising efforts, the indictment says. It also accused him of using $240,000 in PAC funds to buy and paint a residence for them and to buy a car for her.

The mistress is not identified in the indictment. But according to sources familiar with the case and public records, she is Caybre Cothern Ferrari, 39, who once worked as a scrub tech for Mendelsohn's eye surgery clinic.

At Mendelsohn's suggestion, the mistress established a corporation in March 2004 to divert campaign funds to Mendelsohn, herself, Florida politicians and others, the indictment says. It is illegal to divert campaign funds to personal use.

Public records show Ferrari created Broward-based KAC Consulting Inc. in March 2004.

Also in March 2004, records show that Ferrari transferred the deed to a home in Hollywood to her maiden name, Cothern. Mendelsohn is listed as a witness on the deed, records show.

2. The Supreme Court granted cert in 10 cases today, including a bunch of criminal law issues. SCOTUSBlog has all the details. The big one that everyone is talking about is: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago -- Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home. More interesting to me is the sentencing issue raised in United States v. O’Brien and Burgess: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machine gun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

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.

Justice Moreno??

Obama's short list for filling Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court has been leaked. And there's a Moreno on the list. Unfortunately, it's not our Moreno -- it's California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno (that's him on the left). Here's the rest of list:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood

Souter succession speculation

ABC News Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford Greenberg canceled her scheduled appearance today at the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Extravaganza in Birmingham. Instead, she stayed in Washington to contribute to the frenzy of speculation about Justice Souter's successor. (The President is chatting with Souter in the photo, which is from the White House's new Flickr photostream.)

The Wall Street Journal has a fun graphic with scary mugshots of leading contenders. The Economist includes former President Clinton among the hopefuls. CNN lists seemingly everyone imaginable except Bill—including SDFla's Judge Jordan, whom this blog has previously all but endorsed.

As for Souter, he's not yet gone but already seems to be forgotten. Justice Stevens wrote today about Souter that "the Court will suffer a far greater loss than many now realize." That's almost certainly true as even the illuminati of constitutional law seemed at a painful loss today to dig up even one defining, signature Souter opinion in United States Reports. Professor Powe of Texas summed it up: "He couldn’t be my favorite for what he wrote; he was my favorite for what he was." (Souter did write one that shows how crafty he is—Brendlin v. California (2007)—but I'm apparently not on the New York Times' speed-dial.)

Justice Souter retiring at the end of the Term

WOW!! Big news!!

Here's ScotusBlog:

Justice David H. Souter has decided to retire when the Supreme Court completes its current Term in early summer, the NBC-TV network reported Thursday night. The 69-year-old jurist, who is completing his 19th year on the Court, has passed word of his plans to others, and the White House has been told, according to the network’s account. Other news organizations also were reporting that Souter has made his decision not to continue serving.
By leaving office this summer, Souter will be giving President Obama time to select and seek Senate approval of the new Chief Executive’s first appointee to the Nation’s highest court before the Court returns for a new Term on Oct. 5. That process could be slowed, however, if the President chooses a nominee who would stir such opposition among conservatives that Senate action could be slowed. With Democrats in control of the Senate, however, Obama’s choice almost certainly would win approval.
Even if the President were to pick a decidedly liberal new Justice, it would not bring a strong shift in the current Court’s direction, since four conservatives along with their sometime ally, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tend to control outcomes on many key issues.

Well, now we can start our who will replace Souter sweepstakes. Any chance it's someone from the 11th or our District? We've had prospects before... In fact, the very first post on this blog urged then-President Bush to appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court. So, who are our best prospects?

Breaking: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Undergoes Cancer Surgery

From NPR:

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Undergoes Cancer Surgery

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has undergone surgery for pancreatic cancer, apparently at an early stage. The court said the 75-year-old Ginsburg had the surgery Thursday at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. She will remain in the hospital for seven to 10 days, said her surgeon. Dr. Murray Brennan. This was according to a release issued by the court.

Former SDFLA clerk goes to Supreme Court

Congrats to 30-year old Lindsay Harrison, a fifth year associate at Jenner & Block, for arguing before the Supreme Court last week -- her first appellate argument. A bunch of blogs have been covering the argument and Ms. Harrison, who clerked for Judge Gold and Judge Barkett. Here's a bit of an interview from AboveTheLaw:

ATL: First things first. What did you wear? There has been some controversy over how women oral advocates should dress when appearing before the Court.
LCH: I wore a black pantsuit. I was not about to wear a skirt, since they dispensed with that requirement and permitted women to wear pants a few years ago. If women don't take advantage of that opportunity, it sets a bad precedent. And I wore pearls -- my concession to formality.
ATL: You must be one of the youngest people ever to argue before the Court. Have you done any research to figure out where you fall?
LCH: I'm definitely not the youngest. The woman who argued Roe v. Wade, Sarah Weddington, was 26 at the time. Tom Goldstein was 29 when he argued his first case. I turned 30 on January 5.

The whole interview is a fun read.

UPDATE -- Ms. Harrison writes in:

There are actually a bunch of SDFL connections to the argument. An amicus brief was written by Adam Raviv (Marcus clerk) on behalf of FIAC, where my Barkett co-clerk Tania Galloni works. Cecily Baskir, another Barkett clerk, participated in one of my moots. And the argument was attended by both Adam Raviv and Deb Raviv, a King clerk from 03-04. All in all, a great showing for the SDFL.
I've also received a lot of really nice emails from folks in Miami, and it's been great to hear from the community, which I still feel very strongly a part of.