The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
The NY Times explains how discovery and sentencing are broken in the criminal justice system. But this is old news, no?
On Brady:
The current Brady rule requires prosecutors to make two judgments: Is evidence favorable to the defendant? If so, is it likely to affect a decision about guilt or punishment? Too often, prosecutors avoid disclosing evidence by answering no to the second question.
In ruling on the Smith case, the court should refine the Brady rule by eliminating the second question and requiring that prosecutors hand over all favorable evidence. Let a judge or jury weigh its importance.
On Sentencing:
The racial disparities in sentencing are also stark. In some cases, mandatory minimums can be reduced for offenders if the crime did not involve violence or a gun. But most African-American drug offenders convicted of a crime carrying a mandatory minimum sentence could not meet these and other requirements: only 39 percent qualified for a reduction compared with 64 percent of whites.
The report notes that inequitable sentencing policies “may foster disrespect for and lack of confidence in the federal criminal justice system.” Not “may.” Given the well-documented unfairness, Congress needs to rescind all mandatory minimum sentences.
So, Eric Holder has been saying all the right things about criminal discovery issues and has even issued guidelines to line AUSAs about more liberal disclosure, but there is increased grumbling amongst defense lawyers and judges that nothing has really changed (and in many cases, has gotten worse). In fact, DOJ is lobbying hard against changing Rule 16 to allow for more liberal disclosure of Brady/Giglio material.
I don't typically blog about my cases, but here's my most recent experience with this issue (without naming names): I was in court last week where DOJ was taking the position that even though their two critical witnesses lied to the grand jury, they did not need to disclose the grand jury testimony because Jencks trumped Brady. I kid you not. Needless to say, the district judge disagreed. But is this really the sorts of positions that DOJ should be taking?
Here's an op-ed by Jim E. Lavine and Ellen S. Podgor about DOJ not practicing what it preaches:
The practice of prosecutors failing to abide by constitutional and ethical standards in providing important materials to the defense is not unique to these cases, but it is particularly problematic to see when prosecutors are then turning around and charging crimes against others who allegedly do the same thing -- fail to give the other side materials they believe are important to their investigation.
That’s exactly what they did when they decided to indict a former vice-president and associate general counsel of Glaxo-Smith Kline. Prosecutors charged her with crimes that included obstruction of justice and concealment of documents from an FDA inquiry, arguing that the counsel failed to provide materials to the federal agency.
The problem here is clear. The three new policies of the Department of Justice are all internally controlled, provide for no external monitoring and allow each local United States Attorneys’ Office to set up their own discovery policies for their individual office. There is no real oversight.
In fact, the Department of Justice has opposed making any rule changes that would include some outside scrutiny. How many chances should they get?
Update -- Here is the proposed amendment to Rule 16 that DOJ opposes. Someone explain to me why this is controversial:
Rule 16. Discovery and Inspection (a) GOVERNMENT’S DISCLOSURE. (1) INFORMATION SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. * * * * (H) Exculpatory or Impeaching Information. Upon a defendant’s request, the government must make available all information that is known to the attorney for the government or agents of law enforcement involved in the investigation of the case that is either exculpatory or impeaching. The court may not order disclosure of impeachment information earlier than 14 days before trial.
Tom Withers covers the memos here. A snippet from his summary:
The Guidance Memo then directs that the discovery review should cover the following: 1) the investigative agency’s files, 2) Confidential Informant/Witness/Source files, 3) Evidence and Information Gathered During the Investigation, 4) Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys and/or Regulatory Agencies in Parallel Civil Investigations, 5) Substantive Case Related Communications, 6) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Law Enforcement Witnesses, 7) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 Declarants, 8) Information Obtained in Witness Interviews, a) Witness Statement Variations and the Duty to Disclose, b) Trial Preparation Meetings With Witnesses and c) Agent Notes. The Guidance Memo then directs that although prosecutors may delegate the process of review to others, they “should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”
3. Lots of coverage on the shootings from Las Vegas. Just terrible stuff. Here's the video that is making the internet rounds:
Today at every federal courthouse security will be a little tighter. People will get a second look, maybe a third. There is no correlation between what happened in Las Vegas yesterday and federal court anywhere else. People get angry at the grocery store, at the post office, and at work. But it's like when someone with a shoe bomb tries to blow up a plane, well, you know the rest.We (those who go to court) all have to deal with what happened yesterday. It will happen again, we all know that. But because we cannot stop a sick, angry litigant from sneaking in with a gun, a shotgun, we have to at least pretend we can. The gunman was dressed in black. Watch "no black" be the next addition to the dress code. We can only sigh and understand that this is the world in which we live.It angers me that today I have to mourn the death of a Court Security Officer, a retired cop now one of the guys in blue jackets that waive familiar lawyers through, and say "how you doin' today counsel?". A guy who just "went to work" right after the new year, and left the courthouse dead. Five seconds before he was probably talking to a prosecutor, defense lawyer, or fellow security officer about his New Year's vacation. or the weekend's football games.Pisses me off.
4. Random thought of the day: Why does Blogger say that internet is misspelled?
There were flashes of incredulity and anger from justices at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as they considered whether Tennessee prosecutors had committed misconduct in obtaining and defending a death sentence against a man who murdered a Memphis couple in 1980. Gary B. Cone admitted to the murders, and the only defense he offered at his trial was that he had been in an amphetamine psychosis. Prosecutors worked hard to discredit the defense, calling it “baloney.” Years later, though, it turned out that prosecutors had withheld evidence from Mr. Cone’s lawyers that would have supported his claim. Jennifer L. Smith, a lawyer in the state attorney general’s office, was vigorous in her defense of the prosecutors’ conduct. She said that they had no legal or ethical obligation to provide the information to the defense and that it would not have mattered anyway. Justice David H. Souter, who served as the attorney general of New Hampshire early in his career, did not like those answers. “I will be candid with you,” he told Ms. Smith. “I simply cannot follow your argument because I believe you have just made a statement to me that is utterly irrational.” After Mr. Cone’s lawyers finally obtained the withheld evidence more than a decade after his conviction, prosecutors gave the courts a series of wildly inconsistent reasons for why Mr. Cone’s conviction and death sentence should not be re-examined in light of the new information. The issue had already been decided, they said. Or it had been presented too late. Or it had never been presented at all. On this point, Ms. Smith was willing to acknowledge that prosecutors had made missteps. “We have confessed that there was an error by the state,” she said. But she seemed to place some of the blame on Mr. Cone, saying his lawyers had filed unwieldy and confusing papers. "He buried all his good arguments,” Ms. Smith said of Mr. Cone.
Oh... It was the defense lawyer's fault for burying all those good arguments! Breyer wasn't buying it.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Mr. Cone’s briefs had been clear enough. “Don’t you think,” Justice Breyer asked Ms. Smith, that Mr. Cone was “saying in his briefs: ‘I’ve been getting the runaround. First, they tell me it’s one thing; then they tell me another’?”
If we really want to solve the Brady problem, discovery rules in federal criminal cases need to be fixed. To see the absurdity of the federal criminal discovery, one need only compare it to federal civil discovery. The best prosecutors are the ones who say, I'll give you everything -- I have an open file policy. Those prosecutors typically have the strongest cases and get the most pleas from defendants. When non-lawyers hear that you find out the witnesses and exhibits on the first day of a federal criminal trial, they can't believe it. Their jaws drop when they hear that you get the prior statements of witnesses when the witness actually takes the stand. More and more, judges are forcing prosecutors to turn over some material earlier, which is helpful. But there should be more liberal rules about witness statements being disclosed (including summaries of those statements by agents), and witness and exhibit lists being disclosed.
