11th Circuit reinstates charges against Padilla

In a fifteen page opinion, the 11th Circuit has ruled for the Government on its appeal of the order dismissing Count I of the Padilla indictment. Here is the initial coverage by Vanessa Blum. More to follow from me once I've read the opinion. Initial coverage by me here.

Update -- So, I've read the decision. It's pretty bland. But if the law is supposed to make sense to the average citizen, check out these sentences in the concluding section:

Our analysis could stop there, but in light of the rather abstract nature of the
elemental analysis, we think it wise to elaborate briefly on the concept in practical terms. It appears that the trouble in this appeal stems from the interrelatedness of the three counts at issue. As we have noted, § 956 (the charge in Count One) serves as an object offense for § 2339A (the charge in Count Three), which serves as an object offense for § 371 (the charge in Count Two). But while these three charges are interrelated, they are not interdependent. The object offenses on which Counts Two and Three are premised are not themselves elements of those counts. In other words, to use Count Three as an example, the Government need not prove all the elements of § 956, the object offense, in order to satisfy the elements of the substantive § 2339A charge.

Yikes. The law has taken a strange path on prosecutorial decision-making, hasn't it? I think what the court is saying is that the law permits prosecutors to charge the same facts under lots of different legal theories. But does that make any sense? Do you think jurors understand this very fine distinction? Shouldn't we be making it easier for juries, not harder? I think Judge Cooke had the right idea -- the prosecutors need to figure out how it wants to proceed on this case and go forward on that theory. Prosecutions should not be multiple choice tests.

Cocaine Cowboys article

Julie Kay (for Category 305, not the DBR) writes about the Cocaine Cowboys movie here. Fun article and fun stories.

Alito comes to the Southern District of Florida

Seems like the Justices enjoy taking road trips to South Florida. Alito spoke at a luncheon for the Palm Beach County Bar Association last week. He previously spoke at Alex Acosta's investitute. And the Chief was just in town speaking at the University of Miami. (Roberts was interviewed by Jan Crawford Greenburg, who has a new blog and a new book. I'm in the middle of the book, Supreme Conflict, and it's a must read for Court junkies.)

"If we want to continue to attract the best and the brightest to the bench, we need to pay them more than second-year associates."

That's Guy Lewis in yesterday's Miami Herald, commenting on the debate about whether federal judges should be paid more.

"Halliburton sued in alleged Iraq rape of a Florida woman"

Vanessa Blum has the story here (and there are an awful lot of comments that follow from readers):

"Keys for those units were kept in an unsecured, unguarded key box and apparently a large number of employees knew where it was," [Miami attorney John] Spiegel said. "This dangerous situation clearly began with this gentleman having an opportunity to gain access to her studio," he said. "Imagine a woman checking into a hotel and the hotel allowing pretty much anybody access to room keys. I think the public would be outraged."Spiegel said Halliburton also turned a blind eye to alcohol consumption on premises, creating unsafe conditions for the small number of female employees working among hundreds of men.The woman reported the rape the following morning and was flown to a Baghdad hospital where a rape kit was performed to collect DNA samples.After taking several weeks' medical leave in Florida, she returned to Iraq but left permanently in July because of emotional difficulties.The suit seeks compensation for pain and suffering.

“They have stolen the courthouse from the Superior Court of California, and I mean nothing short of that.”

So said Mike Tein in front of Judge Altonaga yesterday. Robert Parks wasn't happy about it and the gloves came off. Julie Kay has the whole story here.

In this corner...

I'm not sure you ever want to be a defendant when the plaintiffs are federal judges. Looks like we're closer to litigation over the new courthouse. Earlier coverage here. Said William J. Zloch, the chief judge for the Southern District of Florida: ``We are frustrated. The general contractor is basically unable to perform and there are numerous problems that have led the GSA to evaluate its legal rights.''

"The lash is about to fall on all"

That was Judge Cooke today during the motion for a rule to show cause in the Jose Padilla case. Judge Cooke showed why she is such a great judge during the hearing -- she took appropriate action for the leak to the NY Times but did not go overboard and order an evidentiary hearing or sanctions.

The government's main argument for going forward with an evidentiary hearing was to make sure that those who were responsible for trying to "taint the jury pool" were exposed and punished. But if the defense lawyers were truly interested in tainting the jury pool, why leak to the NY Times? Why not leak to television reporters (as was done in this case) or at least the local reporters (who covered the action today here, here, and here). Although Judge Cooke apparently has a subscription, how many Miami jurors actually read the NY Times?

In the end, Judge Cooke took the defense lawyers at their word that "this was a simple misunderstanding, an honest mistake, and it has been rectified. Your honor can rest assured that this matter is at an end. There have been no further disclosures.''