1. En banc 11th Circuit, per Judge Pryor, rules that Orlando can place limits on feeding homeless without violating First Amendment. CSM coverage of the case here:
In a decision announced Tuesday, a federal appeals court ruled against the group, Orlando Food Not Bombs, and gave a green light to city officials to enforce an ordinance restricting weekly feeding of the homeless in downtown parks.
“The city is in a far better position than this court to determine how best to manage the burden that large group feedings place on neighborhoods in the city,” Circuit Judge William Pryor wrote for the unanimous decision of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
2. Still no Bonds verdict. Day 4 of deliberations today.
3. Via Jay Weaver, ICE chief on paid administrative leave. AOL snitched him out:
The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for South Florida has been placed on paid administrative leave, as federal agents investigate four images of child pornography he allegedly received on his home computer via an AOL e-mail account, according to sources familiar with the probe.
4. Front page story about my friend Alfred Spellman and his partner Billy Corben, who are just tearing it up at age 32! Their latest flick, Square Grouper, looks great:
He and Alfred Spellman, both 32, started filming documentaries with their friend David Cypkin when they were in high school, Corben at New World School of the Arts and Spellman and Cypkin at North Miami Beach Senior High School. Now their formerly self-staffed group rakontur employs six full-timers in their Miami Beach house-cum-office.
Even with that growing staff, it’s hard to believe they’ve produced half a dozen award-winning feature-length documentaries, including The U, part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 series. Or that the Miami premiere of their new documentary Square Grouper on Thursday is the first of five premieres set for 2011. Another five full-length features are planned for 2012. Up until now, the group had released about one a year.
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
Showing posts with label judge pryor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judge pryor. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Friday, March 04, 2011
"This appeal is about usurping the role of the jury in a criminal trial byrelying upon racial stereotypes."
That's how Judge Pryor started the opinion in United States v. Almanzar. Also on the panel was Judge Carnes and our very own Judge Seitz.
The rest of the opinion's intro:
The key question presented is whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that Araceli Almanzar knowingly possessed with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The United States appeals the judgment of acquittal and conditional grant of a new trial entered in favor of Almanzar after a jury found her guilty of the charged offense. During a traffic stop of a truck loaded with 6,665 grams of methamphetamine in a hidden compartment, Almanzar exercised control over the truck and gave both written and verbal consent to its search, lied to a state trooper about the ownership of the truck and her acquisition of it, presented a phony bill of sale, and appeared to be so nervous as to be on the verge of a “panic attack,” with her hands shaking and her mouth dry. Almanzar later admitted that she had lied to the state trooper because her travel by bus from Dallas to Atlanta with her brother to retrieve the truck from two strangers was “suspicious.” She also admitted that she knew the truck contained “something we were not supposed to have.” Before the district court entered a judgment of acquittal, it stated that “life is different for a Hispanic woman in a male dominated culture, . . . the cultural expectations are different and that Hispanic women frequently, basically, do what their male family members ask them to do without asking lots of questions.” The United States argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the district court applied the wrong standard of review, relied on speculation and impermissible stereotypes, considered information not in the record, and substituted its judgment for that of the jury. The United States also argues that the jury’s verdict was not a miscarriage of justice that would support the grant of a new trial. We agree with both arguments of the United States. We vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Who got this one right -- the district judge or the 11th Circuit?
The rest of the opinion's intro:
The key question presented is whether there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict that Araceli Almanzar knowingly possessed with the intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). The United States appeals the judgment of acquittal and conditional grant of a new trial entered in favor of Almanzar after a jury found her guilty of the charged offense. During a traffic stop of a truck loaded with 6,665 grams of methamphetamine in a hidden compartment, Almanzar exercised control over the truck and gave both written and verbal consent to its search, lied to a state trooper about the ownership of the truck and her acquisition of it, presented a phony bill of sale, and appeared to be so nervous as to be on the verge of a “panic attack,” with her hands shaking and her mouth dry. Almanzar later admitted that she had lied to the state trooper because her travel by bus from Dallas to Atlanta with her brother to retrieve the truck from two strangers was “suspicious.” She also admitted that she knew the truck contained “something we were not supposed to have.” Before the district court entered a judgment of acquittal, it stated that “life is different for a Hispanic woman in a male dominated culture, . . . the cultural expectations are different and that Hispanic women frequently, basically, do what their male family members ask them to do without asking lots of questions.” The United States argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict and the district court applied the wrong standard of review, relied on speculation and impermissible stereotypes, considered information not in the record, and substituted its judgment for that of the jury. The United States also argues that the jury’s verdict was not a miscarriage of justice that would support the grant of a new trial. We agree with both arguments of the United States. We vacate in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Who got this one right -- the district judge or the 11th Circuit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)