My first call for impeachment

"When something uncanny, accidental and unexpected happens."

That's the definition of coincidence.

There was a pretty incredible one today in Judge Middlebrooks' courtroom.

It was jury selection for the cops who were charged with perjury in connection with a Judge Altonaga case. They were charged with lying about AFPD D'Arsey Houlihan's client last year. Well, who was called for jury duty today before Judge Middlebrooks? Mr. Houlihan was. He sat in the box for a bit before the parties realized who he was. Needless to say, he wasn't picked for jury service...

"Alas, once a sea cow, always a sea cow."

Check out this motion to dismiss filed by John Kallen of Badiak, Will & Kallen, counsel for MarineMax in CLEAR MARINE VENTURES, LTD., v. BRUNSWICK CORP. The case is assigned to Judge Moreno... My bet is that the Chief isn't going to find this too funny. Here's the first section of the motion:

MARINEMAX’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT X
OF PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Defendant MarineMax moves to dismiss Count X of plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.

I. Nature of the Action

He first saw the model on line and in a promotional brochure (para. 13-15). [Footnote 1: The following is not intended or meant to titillate, but illuminate the unique relationship that an individual has with a vessel and the special, discriminating and demanding wants and needs of a wealthy individual, who was disappointed and dismayed with his purchase; who, in the eyes of the law. stands in the same crocs as the common consumer who was disappointed that the new Kenmore front-loader washer didn’t eliminate the grass stains on the kids’ shorts as was promised and warranted.] Her glossy exterior, sculpted body, sophistication, bloodlines, not to mention the accolades of how she could perform, intrigued him, piqued his curiosity (para. 13-15; Exs A. and B. to second amended complaint). Needless to say, he needed to know more, meet her, ride her. He was excited (para. 22).

Suitable arrangements were made. Not wanting to push her too fast, he rode her easy (para. 36, 37). With her prominent front pushed up, her rear somewhat down, her performance was somewhat hesitant and resistant. But he was told she was a maiden, that he’d be her first owner (para. 40, 47).

He knew that with the right master, the right equipment, and with promises of better things to come, her performance could only get better, would be as promised (para. 45). Michael Krieger was hooked (para. 43).

However, as others before him had learned in dealing with her identical sisters, (para. 60), he would soon come to the realization that in her family, beauty’s only skin deep. She had been born with a fatal defect (para.26).

When he realized that despite the glamourous exterior, her performance was as fleet and nimble as a manatee, his interest in her waned. Discontented and having spent a significant amount of money to buy, outfit, maintain and service her (para. 46, 113), he complained. Krieger was instructed to take her in for extensive surgery to correct her imperfections -- not once or twice, but three times (para. 53, 61, 67).

Unfortunately, these procedures, which were designed to decrease her weight and trim, and thereby enhance her performance, failed miserably. She got hot and wet, but too wet. (para. 97, 110, Ex. D to second amended complaint). Just as disturbing, what had at one time been a pleasing, cosmetically acceptable body, had now been transformed into a ghastly and unpleasing specimen.

Alas, once a sea cow, always a sea cow.

Disappointed, dismayed and downhearted (para. 112), Michael Krieger sued to get back the investment he had made in a dream that turned into a nightmare.

So dear readers, is this effective lawyering? Talk to me.

UPDATE -- AbovetheLaw has picked up on our post and has interviewed the author.

This is why federal judges don't like voir dire

Jury panel queried in masturbation trial.

Thank goodness for Broward County...

UPDATE -- Rumpole gets all serious on this topic here.

SECOND UPDATE -- The guy was convicted. Fred Grimm criticizes the prosecution here.

More thoughts on the Padilla jury

As detailed below, a bunch of different blogs are commenting on the Padilla jury. And we have had some interesting comments too. A person who claims to have been on the Libby jury has written in:


J said...
On the Libby jury, we all wore red on Valentine's Day. This jury is wearing red white and blue for the Fourth of July. It wasn't a sign of anything then and it should not be read as one now. It's simply a way to relieve the tension and boredom of being in the courtroom for all those hours. It's hard to keep up, believe me, when it's summer and you're thinking about what to put on the grill rather than what a poor case the government is putting on.
1:04 PM


Interesting. I'm swamped right now so I can't comment further, but I will try to get to it this weekend.

Dress up day...

So, I thought I was being extremely festive today... not only did I dress up my four year old daughter in red, white, and blue for camp, I even wore a red tie to work. That's nothing though.

In the Jose Padilla trial, jurors showed up today all dressed up. Row one in red. Row two in white. And row three in blue. I'm not kidding.

And this isn't the first time the jury has dressed up. A week back, all of the jurors (save one) wore black.

So what do you make of this. On the one hand, the jury might just be having some fun. This is a long trial and it's not a one hour Law and Order show. It's boring.

Perhaps the jury is unified, which might be a poor sign for the defense. If everyone is thinking the same way at such an early stage, defense lawyers get nervous. Or the prosecution might be concerned because this is obviously a happy jury. Happy juries during a terrorism trial might not be good.

The trial is in recess until next Monday so the lawyers will have plenty of time to make themselves crazy over what all this means.

Any thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July!

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson says that in addition to the black and the red, white, and blue, last Friday all the women wore pink and the men blue. What is going on? Anderson also details how the government expert Rohan Gunaratna was scolded by Judge Cooke today for appearing on CNN yesterday. Dan Christensen and Jay Weaver explain here that the expert is under attack by the defense.

You can't make this stuff up...

Pot smoking judge resigns.

Judge of 50 years resigns for sexual comments.

Lawyer really really really sorry for happy meal comments to judge. (previous coverage here).

And police officers arrest man for asking them for warrant before cutting down his tree during the citrus canker days.* Then they make him watch the cutting down of said tree before throwing him in the slammer for 18 hours. Happy ending -- After a trial before Judge Lenard, a jury awards man some money.

Keep laughing Mr. Lat!!

*The cutting down of our fruit trees was perhaps the dumbest policy decision ever in this State. Is everyone still enjoying their $50 giftcards? (But I'm biased: See Markus v. Department of Agriculture, 785 So.2d 595 (3rd DCA 2001)).

11th Circuit quote

A tipster emails me:

Oral argument in the 11th Circuit on Thursday in a sexual harassment case where the defense was, apparently, that the sexual gestures/advances were welcomed by the receiver.

Judge Wilson made the point that, even if there was no sexual harassment at the outset, it at least became a jury question by the end, when defendant allegedly had opened his pants to the plaintiff in the workplace and exposed his genitalia to her, to which defendant's counsel replied, as best I recall:"I cannot leave the inflammatory comments from Judge Wilson hanging out there." Not the best choice of metaphor . . .

News and Notes

1. Mario Claiborne has died, via Scotusblog. This is big news for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers around the country who have been waiting for the Supreme Court to decide United States v. Claiborne, which was to give us all more guidance on how sentencing hearings should be conducted post-Booker.

UPDATE -- the Supreme Court dismissed the case on June 4.

2. The DBR follows up on the Happy Meal comment to Bankruptcy Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff that we covered earlier. Now that we are the DBR affiliate blog, we thought that we might get some props along with Abovethelaw, who broke the story...

Shaq sighting

So I was in the federal courthouse this morning when I saw Shaq in an elevator surrounded by a bunch of Marshals. Before I could get my card out, a court security officer told me that he was there to be sworn in as a deputy marshal... Here is a picture of him being sworn in as a police officer.

"[You are] a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal."

That's what a lawyer (a partner from McDermott Will & Emery -- Chicago) said to bankruptcy Judge Isicoff here in the SDFLA. Here's the whole story and the transcript from Abovethelaw.com.