More on Barbara Lagoa

 This time, a deep dive, by the New York Times. It starts this way:

As a young associate in a prestigious Miami law firm, Barbara Lagoa took on an unusual pro bono case, one without a supervising partner and against a formidable adversary: the Clinton administration.

Ms. Lagoa represented a relative of a 5-year-old boy found off the Florida coast after his mother had drowned trying to cross over from Cuba. His name was Elián González.

Federal agents would eventually seize Elián and return him to his father in Cuba, setting off political shock waves that arguably cost former Vice President Al Gore the 2000 presidential election when he lost Florida.

“After six months, countless briefs, a few all-nighters, two oral arguments and one midnight raid by armed commandos, we learned what it was like to lose,” Eliot Pedrosa, another lawyer on the team, said at a ceremony last year when Judge Lagoa joined the Florida Supreme Court. The experience of “watching armed federal agents use force to pre-empt process,” he said, was “seared into her soul.”

That formative episode helped shape Judge Lagoa’s career as a federal prosecutor and appellate judge and thrust her into South Florida’s political culture, dominated by Cuban-American Republicans.

It is an electoral dynamic that remains powerful two decades later and has helped Judge Lagoa, who now sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, emerge as an attractive choice for President Trump as he considers whom he will name to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

Trump says he may be meeting with her this week in Miami.  The article ends this way:

For the people trying to promote her nomination in South Florida, though, Judge Lagoa’s life story as the daughter of immigrants matters just as much as her record.

Her friends mention her modest upbringing in the blue-collar city of Hialeah. She rode her bike and roller skated around the neighborhood. Her parents saved up to send her to Catholic school. It was a big deal when she went away to New York for law school.

“In the country my parents fled, the whim of a single individual could mean the difference between food or hunger, liberty or prison, life or death,” Judge Lagoa said last year, when she was nominated to the Florida Supreme Court. “Unlike the country my parents fled, we are a nation of laws — not of men.”

"At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Donald J. Trump was a private citizen. As a result the Court will refer to him as such in this decision. In doing so, the Court means no disrespect to him or the esteemed position he now holds."

That was Judge Marra in this 21-page order finding against Trump after a bench trial.  From Politico:

A federal judge has ordered a golf club owned by President Donald Trump to refund nearly $6 million to members who said Trump's team essentially confiscated refundable deposits after taking over the country club in 2012
U.S. District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra ruled that the Trump National Jupiter Golf Club violated the contracts with members by retaining the fees and locking out many members who had declared their plans to resign.
"The Court concludes that the Plan documents, as properly interpreted, were intended to provide club members of the resignation list with a continuing right to use the Club facilities until their membership was reissued to a new member, provided the club member was otherwise in good standing with the Club," Marra wrote.

While that bigly trial came to a close, another one, involving allegations of smuggling Cuban baseball players, led off with opening statements before Judge Kathy Williams.  H. Ron Davidson opened for the government, and the two defendants, Bart Hernandez and Julio Estrada, are represented by Jeff Marcus/Dan Rashbaum and Sabrina Puglisi/Dianne Carames.  Curt Anderson from the AP on openings:

 Florida-based sports agent and a trainer ran legitimate businesses aimed at getting Cuban baseball players to sign U.S. major league contracts but were not involved with smuggling players from the communist island or falsifying travel documents, their lawyers told a federal jury Wednesday.
Opening statements were held Wednesday in the case against agent Bartolo Hernandez and trainer Julio Estrada, both of whom have been charged with conspiracy and alien smuggling. Both face lengthy prison sentences if convicted.
***
Hernandez attorney Jeffrey Marcus said the agent's only involvement with the players was to negotiate their contracts with professional teams through his company, Global Sports Management, and that his percentage was relatively small at less than 5 percent.
"His business is baseball. It's not smuggling," Marcus told jurors. "This case, I think, is a stretch in many ways, in fact and in law."
Likewise, Estrada lawyer Sabrina Puglisi said her client's role was operating training facilities in Mexico and the Dominican Republic so players could stay sharp while they awaited permission to come to the U.S.
Under Major League Baseball rules, Cuban players who establish residency in a third country can sign lucrative deals with teams as free agents, but would have to submit to the baseball draft and get paid less if they come directly to the U.S.
"Julio has nothing to hide. He did everything above board. He's running a legitimate business," Puglisi said.
No players are accused of wrongdoing. Several Cuban-born players are likely to testify, including Yoenis Cespedes of the New York Mets, Jose Abreu of the Chicago White Sox and Adeiny Hechevarria of the Miami Marlins. Puglisi said more than 20 players were trained by Estrada.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ron Davidson said in his opening statement that some players came to the U.S. with falsified passports or used other forms of deception to establish residency in Mexico and other countries. One tactic, he said, was to submit documents to the Mexican government claiming the players had actual jobs such as a welder, mechanic, even as an "area supervisor" for a jet ski company.
"It was just made up," Davidson said.

Curt Anderson profiles Judge Jordan, SCOTUS short-listers

Here's the piece:

Adalberto Jordan, a federal appeals court judge twice confirmed by the U.S. Senate, could become the Supreme Court's first Cuban-American justice if nominated by President Barack Obama and approved once again.

Jordan, 54, is one of a number of potential nominees to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last month. Obama has vowed to nominate a successor, but Senate Republicans say they will withhold approval in hopes that a new Republican president can pick the next justice.

Born in Havana shortly after the communist revolution led by Fidel Castro, Jordan emigrated to the U.S. with his family as a small boy, along with thousands of other Cuban exiles. He attended a Catholic high school in Miami and got both his bachelor's and law degrees from the University of Miami.

Jordan, who goes by "Bert," has served as a federal prosecutor, a U.S. district judge appointed by President Bill Clinton and has sat on the generally conservative 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2012 - the first Cuban-American to do so. He also clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and was in private practice for five years.

The Senate confirmed him to the Atlanta-based appeals court by a 94-5 vote.

During his confirmation hearings, Jordan was asked by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, about his views on the impartiality of judges and whether there was any place for personal or political viewpoints in their rulings.

"We are all human beings, of course, but I think as a judge you need to try and strive very, very hard to make sure you are deciding the case on something other than your own preferences and views, whatever those might be," Jordan replied. "So I have strived and I hope I have achieved impartiality in my years on the bench in Miami."

Adalberto Jordan makes SCOTUS shortlist

Yesterday I raised the possibility of President Obama nominated 11th Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan:

That brings up an interesting idea... what about Obama nominating Judge Jordan?  A moderate, former prosecutor.  He would be the first Cuban-American on the Court.  He clerked for Justice O'Connor and he even played baseball at UM.  He was confirmed 93-1 for the district seat and 89-5 for the 11th Circuit, so he sailed through.  He would also be the first Floridian on the Court, something I have discussed before.

Today, the New York Times also lists Jordan as a potential candidate:

Adalberto J. Jordan

AGE 54.

CURRENT ROLE Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

BACKGROUND Hispanic man. Born in Cuba. Attended University of Miami School of Law. Clerked for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a Reagan appointee. A former federal prosecutor. Appointed to Federal District Court by President Bill Clinton in 1999 and elevated to the appellate court by Mr. Obama in 2012. Confirmed 94 to 5, with 41 Republicans voting in favor.

DISCUSSION Judge Jordan would be the second Hispanic and first Cuban-American justice on the Supreme Court. The White House may calculate that a decision by Republicans to block him could have political consequences in places with sizable Latino voting populations — including his home state of Florida, a swing state in presidential elections, which also has a Senate election this year.

SCOTUSBlog's Tom Goldstein hasn't mentioned Jordan yet.  His money is on Loretta Lynch.  But he does say this:

Minority voters are a different matter.  Traditionally, black and Hispanic turn-out has trailed white turn-out.  In the 2004 election, the percentages were white 67.2%, black 60.0%, and Hispanic 47.2%.  In 2008, they were white 66.1%, black 64.7%, and Hispanic 49.9%.  The 2012 election was the first in which the proportion of black turn-out exceeded that of whites.  The percentages were white 64.1%, black 66.2%, and Hispanic 48.0%.
Overall, in 2012, the white proportion of the voting population decreased to 71.1% and the minority proportion increased to 28.9% (22.8% black and Hispanic).  For that reason, many attribute President Obama’s reelection to minority turn-out.
The best candidate politically would probably be Hispanic.  Hispanic voters both (a) are more politically independent than black voters and therefore more in play in the election, and (b) historically vote in low numbers.  In that sense, the ideal nominee from the administration’s perspective in these circumstances is already on the Supreme Court:  Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s first Latina.

Some quick thoughts on Scalia and going forward

Love him or hate him, he was the most gifted (and entertaining) writer we have ever seen on the Court. "Applesauce" "Jiggery-pokery" "Argle-Bargle" "SCOTUScare"

And he was not at all predictable (like Alito/Thomas). In fact, he jokingly called himself the "best friend" of criminal defendants. And he was!  He was the lone vote to strike down he sentencing guidelines many years before Booker. 

He led the charge on the confrontation rights of those accused of crimes. See, e.g., Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (5-4 opinion where Scalia was deciding vote in favor of criminal defendant).  He was much more defense oriented than Breyer or Kagan, that's for sure.

Even on 4th Amendment issues, he was much better than the so-called liberals.  Check out his dissent in Maryland v. King (the DNA case): "The Court’s assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State’s custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. These DNA searches have nothing to do with identification. ... If the Court’s identification theory is not wrong, there is no such thing as error. ... The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence." 

He also has written majority opinions rejecting infrared surveillance, GPS tracking of cars, and dog sniffs of our homes.  

Of course, he wasn't perfect (see gay marriage, Bush v. Gore, etc), but he was by far the most interesting Supreme Court Justice in our lifetime. RIP.

But now the fight comes.  Who can get confirmed?

Donald Trump said last night in the GOP debate that he would nominate someone like Judge William Pryor.  Judge Pryor and I had this case where we butted heads.  He's also had this recent battle with Judge Jordan.  

That brings up an interesting idea... what about Obama nominating Judge Jordan?  A moderate, former prosecutor.  He would be the first Cuban-American on the Court.  He clerked for Justice O'Connor and he even played baseball at UM.  He was confirmed 93-1 for the district seat and 89-5 for the 11th Circuit, so he sailed through.  He would also be the first Floridian on the Court, something I have discussed before.

So, what do you think?  Is Judge Jordan a viable choice for President Obama?

Thursday News & Notes (UPDATED)

1. Attorney Anthony Livoti Jr. was convicted in the Mutual Benefits case after a lengthy trial before Judge Scola.  He was also acquitted of 20 counts, but that won't help him much at sentencing.

2.  Judge Mark Bennett is (rightfully) railing on the federal sentencing guidelines.  Via CNN:

 Nearly 30 years ago, Congress embarked on a remarkable and ultimately tragic transformation of criminal law. Through the establishment of mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines, discretion in sentencing was shifted from judges to prosecutors. 

After the changes, prosecutors largely controlled sentencing because things like mandatory sentences and guideline ranges were determined by decisions they made.

This change ignored the fact that federal judges are chosen from the ranks of experienced members of the bar precisely because their long legal careers have shown the ability to exercise discretion.

It also ignored the contrasting truth that many federal prosecutors are young lawyers in their 20s and 30s who have little experience making decisions as weighty as determining who will be imprisoned and for how long.

The primary reason for the changes was well-intended, though: Members of Congress wanted more uniformity in sentencing. That is, they wanted a term of imprisonment to derive from the crime and the history of the criminal rather than the personality of the person wielding discretion.

After nearly 30 years, we know how Congress' experiment turned out, and the results are not good. Federal judges have been relatively lenient on low-level drug offenders when they have the discretion to go that way. Turning discretion over to prosecutors via mandatory sentences and guidelines not only resulted in a remarkable surge in incarceration, it does not seem to solve the problem of disparities.

3.  Didn't the AG say that he was trying to fix the sentencing problem?  Yes, but apparently, he is saying the right things but not actually doing much.  According to the Atlantic:

When the justices of the United States Supreme Court confer Friday morning to consider new cases they will have the opportunity to accept for review a dispute that tests not just the meaning of their own recent Sixth Amendment precedent but the viability of a major new policy initiative implemented this summer by the Justice Department to bring more fairness to federal sentencing while reducing the terrible costs of prison overcrowding.
In Gomez v. United States, a Massachusetts case, the justices have been asked to determine whether they meant what they wrote about juries and drug sentences in Alleyne v. United States, decided just this past June, and at the same time whether Attorney General Eric Holder meant what he said, in August, when he promised to curb the ways in which his federal prosecutors abuse "mandatory minimum" sentences in drug cases to obtain guilty pleas (or higher sentences).
The justices should accept this case for review. And the Court should affirm the just principle that a man cannot constitutionally be sentenced based upon charges that are not brought or upon facts a jury does not even hear. But even if the justices aren't willing to muster up that level of indignation, they ought to at least take the opportunity to call out federal prosecutors for saying one thing in front of the microphones and another in court papers.

4.  Here's a great story about how a reporter was able to break the Bonds grand jury testimony.  Right place, right time.  If you were the reporter's lawyer, would you have had the guts to tell him to go forward?

5.  Irfan Khan is suing the federal government for malicious prosecution.  Any chance to play this:




6.  Texas Rangers Leonys Martin Tapanes was apparently kidnapped and extorted, leading to federal charges.  The Herald has the details:

Leonys Martin Tapanes seemed like yet another Cuban baseball player with tremendous promise when he signed a $15.5 million contract with the Texas Rangers in 2011.
But there apparently is a darker story behind Martin’s climb from poverty to Major League Baseball success.
The U.S. attorney’s office in Miami on Wednesday charged three people — Eliezer Lazo, 40, formerly of Miami Lakes, Joel Martinez Hernandez, 37, formerly of Miami-Dade, and Yilian Hernandez, 30, of Hialeah — with conspiring to smuggle, kidnap and extort the 25-year-old Rangers outfielder.
The trio are also charged with smuggling 13 other Cuban baseball prospects to the United States — all of them going from Cuba into Mexico and then into the United States.
Yilian Hernandez, arrested Wednesday by Homeland Security and FBI agents, will have her first appearance in Miami federal court Thursday. Lazo and Martinez are currently serving respective prison sentences of five and seven years for 2012 money-laundering convictions related to Medicare fraud.

7. Finally, the blog gets a little shout out in the DBR for breaking the story yesterday on the two new federal judges being vetted:

The White House is vetting Miami-Dade Circuit Judges Beth Bloom and Darrin Gayles for two open positions on the federal bench in Miami, a legal blog reported.

The Southern District of Florida blog, which is associated with the Daily Business Review, said the judges were picked from among four finalists selected by the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission in August. Miami-Dade Judges Peter Lopez and John Thornton rounded out those on the short list.

Both Bloom and Gayles are serving in the civil division.

The openings were created when U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz took senior status last November and plans by U.S. District Judge Donald Graham to take senior status this month.

Wednesday News & Notes

1.  Although Dore Louis withdrew his request for NSA records and although the judge denied his motion based on that withdrawal, the feds filed another classified pleading to "clarify" what it said in the earlier classified filing.  Of course that clarification is redacted, so we have no idea what needed to be explained.

2.  The Federal JNC has been reconstituted.  Finally. Now can we get William Thomas confirmed? Here are the Southern District's members:
 UPDATED -- THIS LIST BELOW IS INCORRECT.  The correct list is here.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT CONFERENCE
John M. Fitzgibbons, Statewide Chair
Kendall B. Coffey, Conference Chair
Georgina A. Angones
Reginald J. Clyne
Vivian de las Cuevas-Diaz
Albert E. Dotson, Jr.
Philip Freidin
John H. Genovese
Carey Goodman
Evelyn Langlieb Greer
Cynthia Johnson-Stacks
Manuel Kadre
Eduardo R. Lacasa
Ira Leesfield
Dexter W. Lehtinen
Charles H. Lichtman
Richard J. Lydecker
Thomas F. Panza
David C. Prather
Dennis Alan Richard
Jon A. Sale
Stephen N. Zack

3.  Tom Almon received the Eugene Spellman Criminal Justice Act Award.*  I'm really happy to post about Tom Almon, who has been a CJA lawyer for a long time and has really provided a wonderful service to indigent defense.  Here's a picture:

Chief Judge Federico Moreno, me, Tom Almon, Judge Bob Scola (picture by Cathy Wade)

I never met Judge Spellman, but he was very close with Judge Davis who told lots of great stories about him.  Here's the NY Times obituary for Judge Spellman:

Judge Eugene P. Spellman, an 11-year veteran of Federal District Court who was known for innovative sentences and supporting social causes, died of cancer today at Mercy Hospital. He was 60 years old.
Judge Spellman was absent from the bench only a week before his death.
He crafted a novel sentence that withstood a challenge in the tax-evasion case of the industrialist Victor Posner, a millionaire who was ordered to give $3 million to the homeless and to serve meals in a shelter.
In other cases, the judge decried "underhanded tactics" used by Federal immigration officials against Haitian immigrants and released on bond a prisoner with AIDS after ruling that the Bureau of Prisons did not offer the prisoner adequate medical treatment.
In a case involving religious freedom, Judge Spellman ruled that public health and needs outweighed the tenets of the Afro-Cuban Santeria religion and upheld ordinances banning animal sacrifices in the Miami suburb of Hialeah.
He presided over the 1985 trial of Hernan Botero, a Colombian financier who was convicted of laundering $57 million in drug money, as well as drug cases involving former Government ministers of the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean and a former agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

I pulled up an old administrative order when Judge King was Chief, appointing Judge Spellman to the CJA committee.  Lots of heavy hitters also on the committee...

*I also received the award this year.  I have a policy about not posting about me or my cases, but I wanted to post about Tom.  Also, Judge Scola ordered me to put this up.  It is a real honor for me to have received this award.


4.  The 9th Circuit really gives meaning to Rule 16 and Brady.  Check out the latest, from Judge Kozinski, here. Another conservative judge is frustrated with how our criminal justice system is operating.  But when is the last time you saw an 11th Circuit opinion like this?

We vacate the conviction and remand for an evidentiary
hearing into whether the prosecution’s failure to disclose the
certificate in discovery or at any point before the proofs had
closed was willful. If it was willful, the district court shall
impose appropriate sanctions. The district court shall, in any
event, dismiss the illegal reentry count of the indictment on
account of the STA violation, with or without prejudice,
depending on its weighing of the relevant factors. See
18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); United States v. Lewis, 349 F.3d
1116, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003).
We are perturbed by the district court’s handling of the
reopening issue. The court persisted in giving a reason for
allowing the government to reopen that was contradicted by
the record, despite defense counsel’s repeated attempts to
point out the error. The court also ignored defendant’s twiceraised
Rule 16 objection and made a questionable ruling
regarding defendant’s Speedy Trial Act claim.
“Whether or not [the district judge] would reasonably be
expected to put out of his mind” his previous rulings, and
“without ourselves reaching any determination as to his
ability to proceed impartially, to preserve the appearance of
justice, . . . we conclude reassignment is appropriate,” and we
so order. See Ellis v. U.S. Dist. Court (In re Ellis), 356 F.3d
1198, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

5.  Everyone is focused on the blockbuster cases before the Supreme Court.  But how about the debate about Clue:

[Jusice Kagan] resorted to the game Clue—or the plot line of the musical version of Clue, to be exact—to illustrate her point. Kagan wrote: "(Think: Professor Plum, in the ballroom, with the candlestick?; Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the rope, on a snowy day, to cover up his affair with Mrs. Peacock?)"
It was an example of the vivid writing, aimed at making complex concepts understandable that Kagan has adopted in her first years on the high court.
But Alito, the sole dissenting justice, was apparently not impressed. Making the point that different ways of committing a crime do not make them different crimes, Alito wrote a footnote responding to Kagan’s reference.
“The board game Clue, to which the Court refers… does not provide sound legal guidance. In that game, it matters whether Colonel Mustard bashed in the victim’s head with a candlestick, wrench, or lead pipe. But in real life, the colonel would almost certainly not escape conviction simply because the jury was unable to agree on the particular type of blunt instrument that he used to commit the murder.”

A nice comeback by Alito, but why is he making faces at Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor:

The most remarkable thing about the Supreme Court’s opinions announced Monday was not what the justices wrote or said. It was what Samuel Alito did.

The associate justice, a George W. Bush appointee, read two opinions, both 5-4 decisions that split the court along its usual right-left divide. But Alito didn’t stop there. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, Alito visibly mocked his colleague.
Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the high court, was making her argument about how the majority opinion made it easier for sexual harassment to occur in the workplace when Alito, seated immediately to Ginsburg’s left, shook his head from side to side in disagreement, rolled his eyes and looked at the ceiling.

His treatment of the 80-year-old Ginsburg, 17 years his elder and with 13 years more seniority, was a curious display of judicial temperament or, more accurately, judicial intemperance. Typically, justices state their differences in words — and Alito, as it happens, had just spoken several hundred of his own from the bench. But he frequently supplements words with middle-school gestures.

Days earlier, I watched as he demonstrated his disdain for Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, the two other women on the court. Kagan, the newest justice, prefaced her reading of an opinion in a low-profile case by joking that it was “possibly not” the case the audience had come to hear. The audience responded with laughter, a few justices smiled — and Alito, seated at Kagan’s right elbow, glowered.

Another time, Sotomayor, reading a little-watched case about water rights, joked that “every student in the audience is going to look up the word ‘preemption’ today.” Alito rolled his eyes and shook his head.

Sen. Patrick Leahy quotes this blog regarding Judge Jordan

Check out Sen. Leahy's statement here (regarding Judge Adalberto Jordan's status before the Senate), which quotes this post from yesterday:

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

On the Nomination Of Judge Adalberto Jordan To The Eleventh Circuit

February 14, 2012

Republican Senators delayed a final vote on the nomination of Judge Adalberto Jordan of Florida even though the Senate voted 89-5 last night to end a Republican filibuster that has already prevented a vote for four months.  This is a consensus nominee who Senator Nelson has been strongly supporting and who Senator Rubio also supports.  He should have been confirmed four months ago.  He should have been confirmed last night after the overwhelming cloture vote.  Instead, obstruction needlessly delayed the Senate acting to fill the emergency judicial vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit.
Senator Nelson has worked hard for this nomination, working to get Judge Jordan’s nomination cleared by every Democratic Senators in October immediately after it was reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee.  We were ready to vote in October.  We were ready to vote in November.  We were ready to vote before the end of the last session of Congress in December.  It is hard to believe that it is now the middle of February, over four months after Judge Jordan’s nomination was reported with the support of every Democrat and every Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and the Senate still has not voted to fill this judicial emergency vacancy affecting the people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama.  I appreciate why Senator Nelson is frustrated.  I understand why Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary and the Hispanic National Bar Association are, too.

Let me refer to some of the reporting on this.  One post begins:

“So, here’s the absurdity of our judicial confirmation process – the full Senate voted 89-5 to invoke cloture, meaning that Judge Jordan’s nomination to the 11^th Circuit would finally come to a vote.  But then Senator Nelson said that one Senator is holding up the merits vote by demanding 30 more hours of ‘debate’ post-cloture.  Senators Leahy and Boxer both then commented how ridiculous such a request was, but that’s the way it is.  It looks like we’ll have [to] wait another 30 hours for Judge Jordan to move up to the 11^th.  Silliness in our Congress . . . .”

The article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports:
“South Florida lawyers praise him.  Both of Florida’s U.S. senators have recommended him.  And the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to approve his nomination.
But U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan of South Florida has been blocked for four months from rising to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the latest sign of a polarized and dysfunctional Senate.
A Senate filibuster that has kept Jordan waiting and the appellate court undermanned fizzled on Monday when the Senate voted 89-5 to move toward a final confirmation vote.
But Jordan is still waiting because one senator . . . objected to attempts to complete action on Monday . . . .”
I have not heard from any Republican Senators objecting to this Judge explaining what they find wrong with this highly-qualified Cuban American.   I am at a loss as to why Republican Senators continue to delay a vote on this outstanding nominee.  This nominee is beyond reproach.  This is another nomination battle that has nothing to do with the nominee and his qualifications.  This is another example of obstruction based on a collateral objective.  The people of Florida, Georgia and Alabama should not be made to suffer a judicial emergency vacancy when this highly-qualified nominee should be confirmed without further delay.  Nor did anyone come forward to explain the Senate Republicans’ delay for the last four months.   Cloture has been invoked by the Senate and the filibuster will be ended.   There was no good reason to continue to hold up a vote that has already been delayed for four months.
When I first became Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 2001, I followed a time when Senate Republicans, who had been in the majority, had pocket filibustered more than 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominations, blocking them with secret holds in backrooms and cloakrooms, obstructing more with winks and nods, but with little to no public explanation or accountability.  I worked hard to change that and to open up the process.  I sought to bring daylight to the process by making the consultation with home state Senators public so that the Senate Republicans’ abuses during the Clinton years would not be repeated.
When Senate Democrats opposed some of President Bush’s most ideological nominees, we did so openly, saying why we opposed them.  And when there were consensus nominees—nominees with the support of both Democrats and Republicans-- we moved them quickly so they could begin serving the American people.  That is how we reduced vacancies in the presidential election years of 2004 and 2008 to the lowest levels in decades.  That is how we confirmed 205 of President Bush’s judicial nominees in his first term.
Now we see the reverse of how we treated President Bush’s nominees.  Senate Republicans do not move quickly to consider consensus nominees, like the 15 still on the Senate Calendar that were reported unanimously last year and should have had a Senate vote last year.  Instead, as we are seeing today and have seen all too often, Senate Republicans obstruct and delay even consensus nominees, leaving us 45 judicial nominees behind the pace we set for confirming President Bush’s judicial nominees.  That is why vacancies remain so high, at 86, over three years into President Obama’s first term.  Vacancies are nearly double what they were at this point in President Bush’s third year.  That is why half of all Americans—nearly 160 million—live in circuits or districts with a judicial vacancy that could have a judge if Senate Republicans would only consent to vote on judicial nominees that have been favorably voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee and have been on the Senate Executive Calendar since last year.
This is an area where we should be working for the American people, and putting their needs first. This is a nomination that has the strong and committed support of the senior Senator from Florida, Senator Nelson, as well as that of Senator Rubio, Florida’s Republican Senator.  Judge Jordan had the unanimous support of every Republican and every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee when we voted last October, although one Republican switched his vote last night to support the filibuster of Judge Jordan’s nomination. This is the nomination of a judge, Judge Jordan, who was confirmed to the district court by a vote of 93 to one in 1999, even while Senate Republicans were pocket filibustering more than 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees.
I regret that Republican Senators chose to delay a final vote on Judge Jordan’s confirmation.  He is fine man who, after emigrating from Havana, Cuba at the age of six went on to graduate summa cum laude from the University of Miami law school and clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court.  He served as Federal prosecutor and Federal judge.   The needless delay of Judge Jordan’s confirmation is an example of the harmful tactics that have all but paralyzed the Senate confirmation process and are damaging our Federal courts.
It should not take four months and require a cloture motion to proceed to a nomination such as that of Judge Jordan to fill a judicial emergency vacancy on the Eleventh Circuit. It should not take more months and more cloture motions before the Senate finally votes on the nearly 20 other superbly-qualified judicial nominees who have been stalled by Senate Republicans for months while vacancies continue to plague our Federal courts and delay justice for the American people.  The American people need and deserve Federal courts ready to serve them, not empty benches and long delays.

Well done Senator.  Now let's get Judge Jordan confirmed!

Columbus day reading

Here's some fun reading for those of you at work, like me:

1. The first of the Cuban 5 is out. Now what do we do with him? (Via Curt Anderson)

2. The Glass Ceiling doesn't apply to my law firm. (Via NY Times)

3. Judge Denny Chin talks about the difficult time he had sentencing defendants. (Via NY Times)

4. Justices Scalia and Breyer talk to Congress. (Via NPR) Here's an interesting exchange:

Scalia said he tries to figure out how the framers themselves understood the rights they outlined, and then carry those forward to today. Anything beyond that, he said, would be drafting new rights into the Constitution.

"I don't trust myself to be a good interpreter of what modern American values are. I have very little contact with the American people, I'm sorry to say. You do, and the members of the House probably even more," Scalia said. "So if you want to keep the Constitution up to date with current American values, you ought to decide what it means, and you can kiss us goodbye."

Then Breyer actually helped Scalia make an argument, explaining Scalia's worry that Breyer will end up substituting what he thinks is right for what the Constitution actually says.

"What I say is, yes, you are right about that — and all I can do is be on my guard, write my opinions, try to look to objective circumstances," Breyer said, "and I see the opposite danger — the opposite danger is called rigidity. The opposite danger is interpreting those words in a way that they will no longer work for a country of 308 million Americans who are living in the 21st century — work in the way those framers would have wanted them to work had they been able to understand our society."

Then, in a moment of remarkable collegiality, the liberal justice prompted Scalia to make an argument Breyer knew would trump what he had just said. He reminded Scalia about a familiar joke.

Two old friends are camping, Scalia said. When a great, big grizzly bear comes after them, the slower, pudgier friend says they will never outrun the bear. The friend running in front says, "I don't have to outrun that bear. I just have to outrun you."

"It's the same thing with originalism — I just have to show it's better than his [idea]," Scalia said.

It was clear the two justices had debated this hundreds of times. Wednesday's argument just happened to take place before a group of powerful senators. Because of that, the session became a kind of master class in the philosophy of law — and the art of "comity."

5. Scalia also says that the drug laws have hurt the judiciary (Via The Atlantic):

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't a supporter of legalizing drugs. But he does believe that passing federal laws against them has done harm to the U.S. government. "It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal went on to report Scalia's belief that the laws forced Congress to enlarge the federal court system, and diminished "the elite quality of the federal judiciary."

6. The Sun-Sentinel got the Mangione search warrants.

Back to work...

Hope everyone had a nice new year. It's good to be back. A quick look at what was missed the last week:

1. The Cuban Spies strike back... against their lawyers. From the Miami Herald:

In his appeal, Hernandez, 45, contends that his trial attorney, Paul McKenna, mishandled his defense at a 2001 Miami federal trial by focusing so much on the shoot-down location.

That strategy overshadowed evidence that Hernandez purportedly did not know in advance about the deadly Cuban plot over the Florida Straits, the appeal asserts. Evidence of his advance knowledge was crucial to proving his role in the murder conspiracy.

"In short, Hernandez's lawyer was his worst enemy in the courtroom," his appellate attorneys wrote in a habeas corpus petition filed in Miami federal court.

2. Judge Carnes vs. Judge Tjoflat in Floride Norelus v. Denny's Inc.

Both SFL and Kosher Meatball cover this 2-1 case about sanctions against the Amlongs for a 63-page errata sheet. From Judge Carnes' intro:

No one’s memory is perfect. People forget things or get confused, and anyone can make an innocent misstatement or two. Or maybe even three or four. But not 868 of them. In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys, William and Karen Amlong, filed a sixty-three page errata sheet containing 868 attempted changes to their client’s deposition testimony, which was the sole source of evidentiary support for their client’s claims. The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs. This is their appeal, or more specifically their second appeal.

But what struck me was not so much Judge Carnes' colorful way of writing about the case (agree with his decisions or not, he makes reading them fun), but instead how he engages Judge Tjoflat (the concurring judge, District Judge Bowen, did not join in any of these remarks):

• As the magistrate judge found and no one (with the possible exception of the
  dissenting judge on this panel) seriously contests, the improper submission of the
  massive errata document rendered the eight days spent on Norelus’ deposition a
  waste of time and money to say nothing of the time the attorneys were forced to
  spend on the issues created by the document itself.
• Up to this point, we have addressed the issues related to the errata document
  and the award of sanctions as those issues have been raised and defined since that
  document was submitted fourteen years ago. Our dissenting colleague, by contrast, has hatched a brand new theory—a theory that was never raised by the parties, never considered by the district court, and never argued to this Court. The theory
  that he has conjured up is that the errata sheet was really nothing more than a
  “letter” from Karen Amlong to defense counsel. It was not, he insists, an errata
  sheet because he thinks it was never presented to the court reporter or affixed to
  Norelus’ deposition as, he thinks, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires. Dissenting Op. at 1. He is wrong on his premises and wrong in his conclusion.
• Instead of recognizing the obvious import of Norelus’ own certification or following our precedent about who has the burden on appeal where there are any ambiguities, the dissenting judge would remake the case entirely along different factual lines, lines that only he sees.
• From its inception, the errata document has been understood by all, except our dissenting colleague, to be a Rule 30 errata sheet.
• That certification itself and its use to assert “exceptions” to the deposition belies the dissent’s far-fetched assertion that the errata sheet was nothing more than a letter from one attorney to another. And there is more.
• The Amlongs, the defendants, the magistrate judge, the district court judge, all three judges of this Court in Amlong I, everyone in the district court after the remand, and both parties in briefing and arguing the present appeal have understood that. Everyone has understood it—except for our dissenting colleague.
• Now, after almost a decade-and-a-half of litigation, he has been able to discern what everyone else has overlooked: that the Rule 30 errata sheet is not really a Rule 30 errata sheet, but it is instead “a document, although entitled ‘errata sheet,’ [which] had no more legal efficacy than a letter.” Dissenting Op. at 22. During a period of almost fifteen years of looking at the document, no one else has ever thought it was just a letter. And no wonder. Treating the errata sheet as nothing more than a letter is like arguing after Gettysburg that the warring sides had been mistaken all along about the bombardment of Fort Sumter, that it was actually nothing more than a diplomatic overture.
• And the dissenting judge’s extraordinary perception does not end there. He
  is even able to perceive that everyone else’s inability to see that the errata sheet isnot really an errata sheet is not the fault of the Amlongs, who designated it an
  errata sheet and have been arguing for almost a decade and a half that is what it is, and not the fault of all the judges who have consistently treated it as an errata sheet, but instead is the fault of—who else is left? Defense counsel, of course. See Dissenting Op. at 2, 19–20, 22–23.
• Even beyond the facts, there is another problem with the dissent’s attempt to inject the not-an-errata-sheet-but-just-a-letter issue into the case at this point. The issue has been defaulted about as many times and in about as many ways as any issue can be.

Sorry for all the bullets, but wow. Is it me, or was that opinion something more than a "diplomatic overture"?

3. SFL won the blog fantasy football league this year. Well done!

4. Mona and I won the Above the Law fantasy football league.

5. I beat Rumpole in the regular season head-to-head football challenge, but we will continue it into the playoffs. It was a fun battle, especially because watching the Dolphins was torture.

6. Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog is leaving Akin Gump and is going back out on his own. (Via ATL)

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.

Will Supremes grant cert for Cuban 5?

That's the question raised by Jay Weaver in today's Herald.
Less than 1% of cert petitions get granted, but Tom Goldstein signed on to this one and there are very interesting legal issues getting lots of pub. I'll go out on a limb and say cert will be granted in this case. (Prior coverage here)

What say you dear readers?

Will the Supreme Court grant cert in the Cuban 5 case?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Amici support Cuban 5

John Pacenti covers the amicus briefs filed in support of the Cuban 5:

Nobel laureates, scholars and international organizations have flooded the U.S. Supreme Court with legal briefs in support of five convicted Cuban spies, arguing the defendants were sandbagged from the start because the Miami trial took place in a city defined by decades of anti-Castro fervor.
A dozen amicus briefs focus mainly on U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard’s denial of a defense motion to move the trial 25 miles north to Fort Lauderdale.
Her refusal "guaranteed that jurors would be drawn from a cross-section of a community inflamed by passion, warped by prejudice, awed by violence and menaced by the virulence of public opinion," according to a petitions filed by the Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law in Washington.
The Howard brief has particularly offended the Cuban-American community, said Roland Sanchez-Medina, president of the Cuban American Bar Association. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, he said his organization would respond with an amicus brief of its own.
"They obvious did zero actual research to do with anything about the Cuban-American community," he said. "It’s unbelievably inflammatory, ignorant and completely baseless."

Supreme Court stud Tom Goldstein is heading up the Supreme Court litigation for the five:

Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in Washington, who is handling the Supreme Court appeal for the convicted spies, noted support for the defendants has come "from people from all over the world."
Judge Lenard ruled anti-Castro hostility related "to events other than the espionage activities in which defendants were allegedly involved," and any partiality could be vetted during jury selection.
"This was a serious injustice, and it sent all the wrong signals to the world about our commitment to a fair and impartial trial," Goldstein said.

Interesting article, but Pacenti should have given a little more pub to Richard Klugh, who has been guy writing the legal papers throughout these proceedings.

Cuban 5 cert petition

Read it here.

And here is the SCOTUS Blog post on the case.

Tom Goldstein who runs SCOTUS Blog is counsel of record in the Supreme Court for the five.

News & Notes

1. "Former Miami-Dade teacher gets 7 years for enslaving Haitian girl" via the Sun-Sentinel. From the intro of Vanessa Blum's article:
A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a South Florida woman to seven years and three months in prison for keeping a teenage girl from Haiti in servitude for six years.Maude Paulin, 52, a former Miami-Dade County middle school teacher, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work and harboring an illegal immigrant.Before being sentenced, Paulin apologized to U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr., saying she had good intentions when she arranged to bring Simone Celestin from Haiti to live with her family."I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin said. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done."

2. "26 charged in migrant smuggling crackdown" via the Miami Herald. Jay Weaver reports:
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged 26 South Florida suspects with conspiring to smuggle Cuban migrants in yet another major crackdown on illegal crossings of the Florida Straits.
In the latest 12 indictments, the defendants are accused of trying to bring 225 migrants to South Florida.
Prosecutors also charged two other suspects, Yamil Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 34, and Roberto Boffil-Rivera, 35, with alien smuggling, unlawful possession of a firearm and lying to a federal agent.
After the five Cuban migrants reached U.S. shores on April 21, Rodriguez demanded $25,000 payment, prosecutors said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Miami-Dade police detectives recorded two meetings between one migrant and Rodriguez, investigators said. On May 1, he paid Rodriguez $2,000. Six days later, he paid him an additional $3,000.
But Rodriguez was unsatisfied and threatened to shoot the migrant, police said. Rodriguez and Rivera were later arrested. Investigators found a loaded KAHR PM-40 firearm in one of the suspect's cars and pictures of Rivera holding the weapon.

3. Rumpole reports on trying to navigate state court:
We recently received an email from a prominent federal defense attorney who noted his/her travails on a recent Monday morning outing to our humble building. There was no place to park and after a half an hour of circling they parked in the median on a grass strip several blocks away.They got to the courtroom only to be told the prosecutor they had a meeting with had decided not to show up for work that day.A quick trip to the restroom (a clear rookie mistake) produced a few untimely steps in human liquid waste that was on the floor.And finally, beaten down by the heat, the lines, the smelly and dirty bathrooms not to mention the ridiculous belief that the prosecutor who agreed to meet them in court had any intention of actually showing up, they trudged back to their car, tie askew, bathed in sweat, actually longing for Judge Dimeitrouleas’s rocket docket, or for a quick arraignment and trial before Judge Huck, or a nice friendly sentencing before Judge Zlock.

4. "South Florida law firms hit by real estate slump, shed workers" via National Law Journal." Julie Kay explains:
In another sign of the hard times facing the legal industry, particularly in real-estate heavy South Florida, two local law firms — Holland & Knight and Shutts & Bowen — have laid off non-lawyer staffers. On a day that could be dubbed Black Friday in South Florida legal circles, Tampa-based Holland & Knight, one of Florida's largest and most venerable firms with 1,150 lawyers, laid off 70 staffers Friday, including legal secretaries, IT and accounting staff. No lawyers were laid off. The layoffs of about four employees in each of Holland's 17 offices represented 5% of Holland's non-lawyer workforce. Shutts & Bowen, a 200-lawyer, Miami-based firm, Friday laid off nine people, all entry level file clerks or paralegal clerks. No lawyers or legal secretaries were affected. The news comes on the heels of a decision announced internally Friday by Fort Lauderdale-based Becker & Poliakoff to temporarily and immediately chop all lawyer salaries by 12%. The firm, which is heavy in condo and real estate representation, said it was forced to take the action since clients are delaying payment in this lean economic environment.

"You don't have to be crazy to be a criminal defense lawyer in this town- but it helps!!!!"

Jack Blumenfeld, a long-time criminal defense lawyer in Miami, who has represented Jose Battle, Sr. and one of the "Cuban spies", emailed us last night regarding the Padilla verdict and how criminal defense lawyers suffer from disease where you convince yourself that you have a shot at a NG verdict in impossible cases. With permission, we reprint his email here:

If you want to talk to some lawyers to get an idea what the defense is going through, talk to [the Cuban Spy lawyers] about the effect on us when the Cuban Spy jury came back with guilty verdicts. We may have been the only 5 people in Dade County who thought that we could win a NG for Cuban spies in Miami- and that included the defendants, all 5 of whom knew what the outcome would be. I think judge Lenard saw the devastation on our faces, as she cleared the courtroom and had the doors locked, so we could partially recover. Ironically, the defendants were consoling the lawyers. I was in a daze for a week.

These people will go through the same thing. It happens when you ABSOLUTELY know you won the trial but lost the verdict. Cuban Spies- Alleged AQ members- and we all fought our hearts out for a NG- doesn't that make you feel great you chose criminal defense? You don't have to be crazy to be a criminal defense lawyer in this town- but it helps!!!!

Welcome back

UPDATED
Hope you all had a nice holiday weekend. The Marlins are over .500. The Canes are playing (update -- ugh, they lost). One week till the Dolphins. All is good. (Except that the Crocodile Hunter died). (update -- and except that it is pouring rain on election day. For all your state court judicial election updates, check out Rumpole).

A couple notes...

1) Starting salaries for new associates are up, at least in NY, to $145,000. Any news on Miami salaries?

2) "A former law student has filed a federal class action against St. Thomas University School of Law of Miami, claiming that it is illegally accepting and then expelling more than 25 percent of its first-year class to boost its flagging bar pass rates." Here's the Complaint.

3) According to the Washington Post, terrorism prosecutions are down. "In 2002, federal prosecutors filed charges against 355 defendants in international terrorism cases, the study said. By last year, that number had dropped to 46, fewer than in 2001. Just 19 such cases have been prosecuted so far this year, the study said." Here's the report.

Updated Monday morning:

4) Pictures from the NACDL seminar in Miami.

5) Hunton & Williams in trouble due to defections? Julie Kay's article suggests yes.

Here's a quiz for you:

Which of the following (inconsistent) positions is correct?

A. Defendants accused of being spies for the Cuban government can get a fair trial in Miami despite the anti-Fidel/Cuban sentiment.

B. A Defendant (an immigration agent) accused of civil rights violations in the Elian Gonzalez case could not get a fair trial in Miami because of anti-Fidel/Cuban sentiment.

C. Defendants (anti-Castro activists) accused of weapons offenses are brought to trial in Ft. Lauderdale because they'll be viewed as "terrorists [instead of] heroes." (no fair trial in Miami because of the anti-Fidel/Cuban sentiment).

D. All of the above.

The U.S. Government chose D -- sometimes Miami is a fair venue for trial; sometimes not. Read Jay Weaver's article here.

"5 charged with organizing Cuban migrant smuggling trips"

Read the Herald AP article here.

I'm out -- have a nice weekend.

More on the Cuban Five

Howard Bashman does his typical wonderful job covering all the press about this case:
The Miami Herald contains this article today. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that "Court discards convictions of 5 Cubans accused of spying." The Chicago Tribune reports that "U.S. dealt setback on spies; Appellate court rules 5 Cuban agents were unfairly tried in Miami." In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that "Court Orders New Trial For 'Cuban Five.'"
And BBC News reports that "Havana hails US Cuban spy retrial; The Cuban government has welcomed a US appeal court decision to retry five Cubans convicted of spying."

Now that I've read the opinion a couple of interesting points:

1. Professor Gary Moran (from Florida International University's psychology department) did a venue survey pre-trial. He concluded that it would be impossible to receive a fair trial in Miami. The district court did not credit the survey, but the 11th Circuit quotes from it at length. I've used Gary Moran as a jury consultant and he (and his brother Bill) do great work.

2. The 11th Circuit relies not just on the publicity surrounding this case (of which there was a ton), but also relies on the Elian case, the government's admission in a civil case that there was community prejudice on this issue, witnsses during trial who baited the defense lawyers (even asking them if they were doing Fidel's bidding), and the government's comments throughout the trial (especially during rebuttal closing) mixing references to the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor and complaining to the jury that these "spies sent to destroy" this community had a legal defense "paid for by American taxpayers. "

3. A couple people have mentioned to me that this is the first reported decision of a federal criminal conviction reversed based on the denial of a motion for change of venue.

4. The venue motions were prepared by Joaquin Mendez (who, along with Richard Klugh, argued the issue on appeal) and Bill Norris, which relied on the survey by Moran.

5. Many have criticized the 11th Circuit and its opinion as being "liberal" or supporting "communism." It's an interesting criticism of a court that many would call the most conservative appellate court in the country. It's a recent and troubling trend of criticizing judges and courts when there is disagreement with a decision.