Guest Post: Judge Marcia “Great” Cooke

Judge Marcia “Great” Cooke

By Vanessa Singh Johannes

On Saturday, October 21, 2023, the Florida Bar Association’s South Florida Chapter (“FBA”) dedicated their annual gala extravaganza at the Four Seasons Miami to the late Judge Marcia G. Cooke, the first and only African American female to ever serve as a District Court judge in South Florida.  As many of us who practice in Miami know, Judge Cooke spent 18 stellar years on the federal bench, having served as a Magistrate Judge (Michigan), AUSA (SDFL), Chief Inspector General (Florida), and Assistant County Attorney (Miami) beforehand.  Since her untimely passing this past January, tributes have poured in memorializing Judge’s Cooke legacy.  But in a unique manner, the FBA managed to silence a room of 250 lawyers for nearly an hour as they strove to do more than commemorate Judge Cooke’s career.  They wanted us to appreciate, understand, and reflect on who Judge Cooke truly was – a woman who epitomized humility, grace, and kindness – and how we can all honor her legacy in our practice and daily lives.  Through a deliberate program, these goals they attained.

We got to hear from two “insiders” into the Judge’s life – both on and off the bench.  Judge Williams first walked us through a beautiful “story” of two little girls, herself and Judge Cooke, who had dreams that far exceeded the norm for women of that time.  Both of these girls, who grew up quite different, had a defining commonality: they were raised by strong, fierce mothers who taught them to do and be more than the world ever allowed them to do and be.  Judge Cooke defied odds in fulfilling her mother’s dream for her – going from a black girl born into segregated South Carolina, raised in the tough streets of urban Detroit, to one of the highest pinnacles of our profession.  And in doing so, she never forgot where she came from, including the idioms and parables she learned in the South and shared with others (“remember, pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered”).  Nor did she forget who she served – the voiceless in the community; the people who don’t have it all – or her peers, friends, and family.  Indeed, as Judge Williams told us, it was Judge Cooke that reached out to her when she joined the bench, to serve as a friend, confidant, and mentor.  Just like that, the wishes for the two mothers of those little girls had come full circle and to life.

Judge Williams then presented the FBA’s prestigious Edward B. Davis Award, given to a judge who exemplifies excellence and service to the community, federal bench and bar, to Judge Cooke.  The award was received by Judge’s Cooke’s youngest sister, DeLois Cooke Sprystzak, who, like Judge Cooke and their mother, is a strong, fierce woman and serves as the Assistant Principal of a high school in Birmingham, Alabama.  DeLois explained that her sister’s middle name may have been “Gail,” but the “G” really stood for “Great,” as Judge Cooke was a great leader, sister, and friend.  Donning neon light-up sneakers, she also told the audience that her older sister worked tirelessly in her professional life to serve the public, a trait their parents instilled in them, and understood that being a federal judge was a privilege and gift.  (By the way, in wearing sneakers, DeLois fully understood the gala’s assignment.  The FBA requested that all guests donate a new pair of youth-sized sneakers to give back to kids in our community and to even WEAR their own hottest kicks to the event.  Note: with black-tie attire, this was not an easy feat for women to coordinate… but so well worth it for the cause and on the feet!)  DeLois also told us that her sister took measures to remember where she came from, how different her life could have been, and treat others with grace.  If you ever practiced before Judge Cooke, as I have, you know this to be true.  I’ll never forget when my infant son was sick during a trial she was presiding over.  With trepidation and tire, I asked to commence trial the following day at 11 am to take him to the doctor’s.  Not only did she grant my request, but the first question she asked once taking the bench was, “Ms. Johannes, how is your son today?”  Emphatic. Graceful. Human.    

After these personal anecdotes about Judge Cooke, the FBA announced the creation of the “Judge Marcia G. Cooke Scholarship,” which will award a law student with $5,000 towards their studies.  The recipient will be chosen and announced in 2024.  To end the night, the audience was reminded to live a life of public service and gratitude, but also levity and fun… just the way Judge Cooke would have wanted it.  And with that, Tomahawk steaks were enjoyed and champagne glasses clinked to toast a remarkable life lived. 

Here are some photos from the event:

 

What is fraud?

 This is THE debate in white collar circles over the past few years.  Takhalov (the B-girls case) got the discussion going again in the 11th Circuit.  Interestingly, the Supreme Court keeps reversing convictions based on strange new theories that district judges and appellate courts allow.  The latest question hails from the Third Circuit -- is it federal wire fraud for a college dean to lie in order to increase U.S. News Rankings?  From Law360:

The former dean of the Fox School of Business at Temple University has asked the Third Circuit to throw out his conviction on charges that he falsely inflated the school's stats to boost its ranking in U.S. News & World Report, arguing that students still got a good education in exchange for their tuition.

In an appellate brief filed Friday, Moshe Porat — who was sentenced to 14 months in prison and a $250,000 fine after being convicted on mail and wire fraud charges last year — said the government failed to show how falsely inflating the school's numbers constituted a deprivation of students' "property," as required by federal fraud statutes.

"Imagine that an excellent but unheralded lawyer procures false nominations to be named a 'Super Lawyer.' A client hires the lawyer based on the honor, and the lawyer provides top-notch counsel," Porat's brief said. "The lawyer's conduct is dishonest and morally questionable, but has the lawyer committed federal property fraud? The answer is plainly no—even if the client later learns the truth about the fake honor, and even if the client feels duped and would have hired a different lawyer had he known the truth."

And the response:

Philadelphia federal prosecutors urged the Third Circuit on Friday to reject a bid by the former dean of Temple University's business school to toss his conviction for falsely inflating the school's stats to boost its U.S. News & World Report ranking, slamming his argument that the conduct didn't amount to property fraud.

In its response brief, the government called Moshe Porat's appeal "an exercise in straw man advocacy," rejecting his argument that the falsely inflated stats given to U.S. News didn't deprive students at Temple's Fox School of Business of a good education.

"Porat was charged with and convicted of defrauding business school applicants, students, and donors out of money," the government's brief said. "He accomplished this, in part, by giving false information to U.S. News, knowing that this information would result in false rankings that students and donors valued, and knowing that Fox would then broadcast these rankings far and wide in order to gather tuition money and donations from the people who were the targets of the fraud."

When SCOTUS shortlister Amul Thapar visited CA11

Sixth Circuit judge Amal Thapar visited the 11th Circuit a number of times when he was a district judge in EDKY.  Back in 2016, he wrote a notable opinion in a criminal case, U.S. v. Takhalov.  A quick recap of that case here since Thapar is being considered for the Supreme Court.

In Takhalov, the 11th Circuit reversed criminal convictions in an only in Miami case, known locally as the "B-girls" trial. B-girls are bar girls who were tasked with getting guys drunk and running up their tabs at bars.  The B-girls and bar owners were charged with various counts of fraud and money laundering.

The 11th Circuit, per Thapar, reversed and held that the court should have instructed the jury as follows: that they must acquit if they found that the defendants had tricked the victims into entering a transaction but nevertheless gave the victims exactly what they asked for and charged them exactly what they agreed to pay.

The opinion is such a fun read and includes all sorts of fun references (to the Bible, Star Trek, Whiskey, Holmes and more).  Here's the intro:

The wire-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not enact as federal law the Ninth Commandment given to Moses on Sinai.* For § 1343 forbids only schemes to defraud, not schemes to do other wicked things, e.g., schemes to lie, trick, or otherwise deceive. The difference, of course, is that deceiving does not always involve harming another person; defrauding does. That a defendant merely “induce[d] [the victim] to enter into [a] transaction” that he otherwise would have avoided is therefore “insufficient” to show wire fraud. See United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987).
Here, the defendants feared that the jury might convict them of wire fraud based on “fraudulent inducements” alone. Hence they asked the district court to give the jurors the following instruction: that they must acquit if they found that the defendants had tricked the victims into entering a transaction but nevertheless gave the victims exactly what they asked for and charged them exactly what they agreed to pay. The district court refused to give that instruction, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendants of wire fraud and other crimes, most of which were predicated on the wire-fraud convictions. The question presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to give the requested instruction.

*See Exodus 20:16 (“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”) (KJV).

Some other good stuff:

• The question before us, however, is not whether the proposed instruction was “logically entailed” by the given instruction, but whether it was “substantially covered”; and those are meaningfully different concepts. After all, the average juror is not Mr. Spock. If he were, then a trial-court judge’s job would be much easier. He could instruct the jury in broad strokes—instructing only as to the bare elements of the crime, perhaps—and be confident that the jury would deduce all of the finer-grained implications that must logically follow. As it stands, however, the vast majority of American juries are composed exclusively of humans. And humans, unlike Vulcans, sometimes need a bit more guidance as to exactly what the court’s instructions logically entail.
• Now imagine another, more common scenario: a young woman asks a rich businessman to buy her a drink at Bob’s Bar. The businessman buys the drink, and afterwards the young woman decides to leave. Did the man get what he bargained for? Yes. He received his drink, and he had the opportunity to buy a young woman a drink. Does it change things if the woman is Bob’s sister and he paid her to recruit customers? No; regardless of Bob’s relationship with the woman, the businessman got exactly what he bargained for. If, on the other hand, Bob promised to pour the man a glass of Pappy Van Winkle** but gave him a slug of Old Crow*** instead, well, that would be fraud. Why? Because the misrepresentation goes to the value of the bargain.  
  
  ** “Pappy’s,” as it is often called, is a particularly rare bourbon varietal: nearly impossible to find, and nearly impossible to afford when one finds it.
  
  ***Although Old Crow has a venerable pedigree—reportedly the go-to drink of Mark Twain, Ulysses S. Grant, Hunter Thompson, and Henry Clay—it is not Kentucky’s most-expensive liquor. Its “deluxe” version, “Old Crow Reserve,” retails for approximately $15 per bottle.
  
  Thus, a “scheme to defraud,” as that phrase is used in the wire-fraud statute, refers only to those schemes in which a defendant lies about the nature of the bargain itself. That lie can take two primary forms: the defendant might lie about the price (e.g., if he promises that a good costs $10 when it in fact costs $20) or he might lie about the characteristics of the good (e.g., if he promises that a gemstone is a diamond when it is in fact a cubic zirconium). In each case, the defendant has lied about the nature of the bargain and thus in both cases the defendant has committed wire fraud. But if a defendant lies about something else—e.g., if he says that he is the long-lost cousin of a prospective buyer—then he has not lied about the nature of the bargain, has not “schemed to defraud,” and cannot be convicted of wire fraud on the basis of that lie alone.
• Similarly, in Hill, the court instructed the jury that the defendant was guilty of credit-application fraud only if he made false statements to the bank knowingly and willfully. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that he was not guilty if he believed the statements were true. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 852–54 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, to get from the given instruction to the requested one, the jury needed to infer only one thing: that a person cannot lie “knowingly and willfully” if he speaks what is in his view the truth. That inference, too, hardly requires Holmesian feats of deduction.****
****Sherlock or Oliver Wendell: either Holmes will do here.

Big ups to Richard Klugh

Petitions for Panel Rehearing are never granted in the 11th Circuit.  I mean, unless you are the government.  Then, every now and then, they are.  But for the defense, winning a petition for panel rehearing is really really rare; almost impossible. You literally have a better chance of being struck by lightning (1 in 12,000 if you live to 80) than getting your panel rehearing petition granted if you are a defendant. 

But Richard Klugh just put lightning in a bottle in the B-Girls case. Winning a new trial on all the counts but one was a feat in itself (the post on the original entertaining opinion is here).  But then Richard moved for rehearing on the final count.  And won!

Here's the panel:

In Count 21, the government indicted Pavlenko for an email he sent to AMEX on
April 21, 2010.  [DE 953 at 15].  To sustain a wire-fraud conviction, that email must have furthered a fraud scheme, i.e., tricked AMEX into parting with money it would not otherwise have let go.  See Op. at 7–14.  Here, the scheme allegedly worked like this: a B-girl lured a man into Pavlenko’s bar, where the man proceeded to use his AMEX card.  Looking back on the encounter from the clearer light of day, the customer decided he had been defrauded and contested the charge with AMEX.  On April 19, 2010, however, AMEX determined that the charge was not fraudulent and sent its customer a letter saying so.  See [DE Doc. 1142 at 67, 85, 88 (citing Defense Exh. SP 50)].  On April 21, for whatever reason, Pavlenko sent AMEX an email covering up his relation with the B-girl.  But by then, he had nothing left to gain:  AMEX had already upheld the charge.  In doing so, AMEX did not—and, of course, could not—rely on the April 21 email.  [Id. at 88].  And since AMEX had already approved the charge, no reasonable juror could have concluded that Pavlenko defrauded AMEX of that money through the April 21 email, which was the sole basis for Count 21.

    

B-Girls convictions reversed with citations to the Bible, Vulcans and Pappy's Bourbon

Wow, big opinion today by the 11th Circuit, reversing the B-girls convictions.  The blog covered (and frequently criticized) the prosecution and lengthy trial, which involved bar girls getting guys drunk and running up tabs at bars. Welcome to Miami!

The 11th Circuit held that the court should have instructed the jury as follows: that they must acquit if they found that the defendants had tricked the victims into entering a transaction but nevertheless gave the victims exactly what they asked for and charged them exactly what they agreed to pay.

The panel was Ed Carnes, Martin and visiting district judge Amul Thapar (EDKY).

The appellate defense team included Howard Srebnick, Richard Klugh, Marcia Silvers, and John Bergendahl.

The opinion, written by Judge Thapar, is awesome and includes all sorts of fun references (to the Bible, Star Trek, Whiskey, Holmes and more).  Here's the intro:

The wire-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 does not enact as federal law the Ninth Commandment given to Moses on Sinai.* For § 1343 forbids only schemes to defraud, not schemes to do other wicked things, e.g., schemes to lie, trick, or otherwise deceive. The difference, of course, is that deceiving does not always involve harming another person; defrauding does. That a defendant merely “induce[d] [the victim] to enter into [a] transaction” that he otherwise would have avoided is therefore “insufficient” to show wire fraud. See United States v. Starr, 816 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987).
Here, the defendants feared that the jury might convict them of wire fraud based on “fraudulent inducements” alone. Hence they asked the district court to give the jurors the following instruction: that they must acquit if they found that the defendants had tricked the victims into entering a transaction but nevertheless gave the victims exactly what they asked for and charged them exactly what they agreed to pay. The district court refused to give that instruction, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendants of wire fraud and other crimes, most of which were predicated on the wire-fraud convictions. The question presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion when it refused to give the requested instruction.

*See Exodus 20:16 (“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”) (KJV).

Some other good stuff:

• The question before us, however, is not whether the proposed instruction was “logically entailed” by the given instruction, but whether it was “substantially covered”; and those are meaningfully different concepts. After all, the average juror is not Mr. Spock. If he were, then a trial-court judge’s job would be much easier. He could instruct the jury in broad strokes—instructing only as to the bare elements of the crime, perhaps—and be confident that the jury would deduce all of the finer-grained implications that must logically follow. As it stands, however, the vast majority of American juries are composed exclusively of humans. And humans, unlike Vulcans, sometimes need a bit more guidance as to exactly what the court’s instructions logically entail.
• Now imagine another, more common scenario: a young woman asks a rich businessman to buy her a drink at Bob’s Bar. The businessman buys the drink, and afterwards the young woman decides to leave. Did the man get what he bargained for? Yes. He received his drink, and he had the opportunity to buy a young woman a drink. Does it change things if the woman is Bob’s sister and he paid her to recruit customers? No; regardless of Bob’s relationship with the woman, the businessman got exactly what he bargained for. If, on the other hand, Bob promised to pour the man a glass of Pappy Van Winkle** but gave him a slug of Old Crow*** instead, well, that would be fraud. Why? Because the misrepresentation goes to the value of the bargain.  
  
  ** “Pappy’s,” as it is often called, is a particularly rare bourbon varietal: nearly impossible to find, and nearly impossible to afford when one finds it.
  
  ***Although Old Crow has a venerable pedigree—reportedly the go-to drink of Mark Twain, Ulysses S. Grant, Hunter Thompson, and Henry Clay—it is not Kentucky’s most-expensive liquor. Its “deluxe” version, “Old Crow Reserve,” retails for approximately $15 per bottle.
  
  Thus, a “scheme to defraud,” as that phrase is used in the wire-fraud statute, refers only to those schemes in which a defendant lies about the nature of the bargain itself. That lie can take two primary forms: the defendant might lie about the price (e.g., if he promises that a good costs $10 when it in fact costs $20) or he might lie about the characteristics of the good (e.g., if he promises that a gemstone is a diamond when it is in fact a cubic zirconium). In each case, the defendant has lied about the nature of the bargain and thus in both cases the defendant has committed wire fraud. But if a defendant lies about something else—e.g., if he says that he is the long-lost cousin of a prospective buyer—then he has not lied about the nature of the bargain, has not “schemed to defraud,” and cannot be convicted of wire fraud on the basis of that lie alone.
• Similarly, in Hill, the court instructed the jury that the defendant was guilty of credit-application fraud only if he made false statements to the bank knowingly and willfully. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that he was not guilty if he believed the statements were true. United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807, 852–54 (11th Cir. 2011). Thus, to get from the given instruction to the requested one, the jury needed to infer only one thing: that a person cannot lie “knowingly and willfully” if he speaks what is in his view the truth. That inference, too, hardly requires Holmesian feats of deduction.****
****Sherlock or Oliver Wendell: either Holmes will do here.

This is just some of the really fun stuff in the opinion.  Check it out.

It's good to be a prosecutor

Or a former prosecutor:

H. James Pickerstein, a former top federal prosecutor in Connecticut and a popular figure among generations of state lawyers, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 days in prison for stealing more than $600,000 from a former client.
Pickerstein, 69, faced up to 20 years in prison and 33 to 41 months under federal sentencing guidelines after pleading guilty in January to a federal fraud charge. He admitting that he stole $633,410.04 from James Galante, a former Danbury carting company executive. Pickerstein surrendered his law license in December 2014 after his theft came to the attention of his former law firm and federal prosecutors.
Dozens of friends and attorneys were in U.S. District Court in Bridgeport to support Pickerstein, and nearly three dozen people, including former U.S. Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons, wrote letters to U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden attesting to Pickerstein's character and generosity to friends and colleagues in need.

***

Court documents show that Galante asked Pickerstein about the missing money and Pickerstein replied that it was for legal fees owed. In August 2014, Galante invited Pickerstein to his office. During the meeting, which Galante secretly recorded, he confronted Pickerstein about the missing money.
"I'm jammed up with my firm," Pickerstein responded, according to the government's sentencing memorandum. "I'm broke, [my son] hasn't worked; my wife's medication is $3,500 a month." He also asked Galante not to turn him in.
Pickerstein's law firm repaid Galante most of the stolen money, and Travelers Insurance repaid the law firm. As part of his sentence, Pickerstein must pay restitution to Travelers and others.
When it came his time to speak, Pickerstein apologized for his crime and to those he has hurt. He also thanked the dozens of people who spoke or wrote letters in support of him.

Meanwhile, if you are looking for something to watch on TV, check out the next episode of American Greed on Thursday May 19 at 10pm.  It's an episode about the South Beach B-girls trial.  From their press release:

The episode will go behind the scenes of the Bar Girls or “B-girls” fraud scheme in
Miami Beach, Florida. South Beach businessmen with ties to the Russian mob trafficked young, attractive women from Latvia and Estonia into the United States illegally on tourist visas. The B-girls’ mission: in teams of two, they hit the town, and lured male tourists into private clubs owned by the Russian mob. The B-girls encouraged their marks to binge drink vodka, and, once the men were sufficiently intoxicated, the B-girls made unauthorized charges – often totaling more than $10,000 in a single night – to the victims’ credit cards.
Records emerging from “Operation Caviar Beach,” the FBI’s undercover investigation of the scheme, show that hundreds of men were victimized and defrauded of more than two million dollars.
John Bolaris, a former meteorologist for Fox affiliate WTXF in Philadelphia, fell victim to the scheme during a trip to Miami Beach in March 2010. Over the course of two days, the B-girls and bar owners fraudulently racked up more than $43,000 in charges on Bolaris’ American Express credit card. Bolaris, who was interviewed for the episode, recalls seeing the time-stamped bar transactions on his Amex bill for the first time: “Every few minutes, $2,000, $3,000, $5,000, $800 tip, $700 tip!” Bolaris believes his signature was forged after he passed out, and that he was drugged when the B-girls gave him a vodka shot: “There’s not too much that goes on after that that I can truly remember.”