Well, Miami is the hot spot this week for the criminal practitioner:
1. The ABA's White Collar Crime Conference has been going on all week at the Eden Roc. About 1000 defense lawyers and prosecutors show up and try not to look to out of place on South Beach. I'm not sure the Eden Roc knows what to do with such a high nerd factor. The keynote speaker was
Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, who had this to say (via Miami Herald):
"In tackling financial fraud, we are not on a witch hunt,'' Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer told hundreds of lawyers attending his keynote luncheon address at the Eden Roc Renaissance Hotel in Miami Beach.
"We are . . . seeking fairly but firmly to go after criminal conduct where it exists. We also are striving to innovate in how we do business,'' Breuer said. "That could mean utilizing data and intelligence more strategically, or it could mean -- as we've seen in a couple of prominent cases recently -- going undercover.
"However we do it, we will be more targeted, more creative, and more strategic in where and how we look for criminal conduct.''
2. The Federal Defenders and the CJA reps are also having their annual conference here this week. Of course, their digs are a bit more economical: they are staying at the Hyatt downtown.
3. And the Federal Bar Association's South Florida Chapter is hosting two upcoming events in March.
On March 10, 2010, the Federal Bar's monthly luncheon series continues at The Bankers Club in Miami. Honorable Marcia G. Cooke and Kendall Coffey of Coffey Burlington will lead a discussion on: "Trying High Profile Cases - The Realities, Strategies, and Ethical Considerations." The lunch begins at 11:45AM.
On March 16, 2010, the South Florida Chapter is hosting a reception from 5:30PM to 7:30PM at the Wilkie Ferguson Courthouse honoring retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
To join, visit www.fedbar.org and click on the South Florida Chapter. If anyone has questions about the events, contact Chapter President Bill Roppolo at William.Roppolo@Bakermckenzie.com
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010
CONGRATS TO WILLY FERRER
Jay Weaver is reporting that the White House has officially nominated Wilfredo Ferrer to be U.S. Attorney of the District:
His résumé was an easy sell: He is a one-time federal prosecutor in Miami and is currently chief of Miami-Dade County's federal litigation section. He's also the former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
The son of Cuban immigrants also was valedictorian at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High, first in his class at the University of Miami, and president of his class at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"First of all, he understood better than anybody I've worked with how the federal government works with local and state governments, " Reno said in an earlier interview. "If I wanted to write the book about how to be the U.S. attorney, Willy would be one of my models."
If confirmed by the Senate, Ferrer would replace U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman. Ferrer, 43, married with two sons, would be the fourth lawyer of Cuban descent to fill the prominent job -- but the first appointed by a Democratic president.
Congrats to Willy! Hopefully Kathy Williams' nomination will come soon!
His résumé was an easy sell: He is a one-time federal prosecutor in Miami and is currently chief of Miami-Dade County's federal litigation section. He's also the former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.
The son of Cuban immigrants also was valedictorian at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High, first in his class at the University of Miami, and president of his class at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
"First of all, he understood better than anybody I've worked with how the federal government works with local and state governments, " Reno said in an earlier interview. "If I wanted to write the book about how to be the U.S. attorney, Willy would be one of my models."
If confirmed by the Senate, Ferrer would replace U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sloman. Ferrer, 43, married with two sons, would be the fourth lawyer of Cuban descent to fill the prominent job -- but the first appointed by a Democratic president.
Congrats to Willy! Hopefully Kathy Williams' nomination will come soon!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
"On October 4, 2010, Elena Kagan Will Ask Her First Question As A Supreme Court Justice"
That's Tom Goldstein over at ScotusBlog, predicting that Justice Stevens will retire and that SG Kagan will take his place. The whole thing is worth a read, but here's the conclusion:
So, here is how I expect the next few months to play out. In the spring, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement. In May or June, the President will nominate Elena Kagan. Explaining that her paper record is a thimble-full of Sonia Sotomayor’s, Senator Leahy will schedule hearings and Senator Reid will schedule a floor vote before the summer recess. The only theme that will give opponents any success is that she fails to express her views on anything. She will then be confirmed by a vote of 61 to 39. Ok, that last prediction about the exact vote could be off by a bit, but I feel pretty confident about everything else.
So, here is how I expect the next few months to play out. In the spring, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement. In May or June, the President will nominate Elena Kagan. Explaining that her paper record is a thimble-full of Sonia Sotomayor’s, Senator Leahy will schedule hearings and Senator Reid will schedule a floor vote before the summer recess. The only theme that will give opponents any success is that she fails to express her views on anything. She will then be confirmed by a vote of 61 to 39. Ok, that last prediction about the exact vote could be off by a bit, but I feel pretty confident about everything else.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Lew Freeman who?
Lew Freeman finally surrendered today on an information, charging one 20 year count. The best thing that ever happened to Freeman is Scott Rothstein. No one seems to care about this case anymore even though Freeman was as well known as Rothstein. But the losses in this case are only 2.6 million instead of a billion...
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sidney Aronovitz Courthouse
The naming ceremony for the federal courthouse in Key West is this morning. It will now be called the Sidney Aronovitz courthouse. Here's the Wiki entry for Judge Aronovitz, who was born in Key West.
Update: Here's two photos from the event from a tipster: 
Friday, February 19, 2010
"The great Sony PlayStation caper"
That's the quotable Mike Tein on the new indictment accusing his client and others of exporting video games and other electronic products to a shopping mall in Paraguay that allegedly served as a front to finance the terrorist group Hezbollah. Here's the Herald article and more Mike Tein quotes:
"Believe it or not, this indictment actually charges these gentleman with supporting Hezbollah by shipping them Sony PlayStations,'' Tein said. "I guess that's a new type of weapon of mass destruction.''
"Believe it or not, this indictment actually charges these gentleman with supporting Hezbollah by shipping them Sony PlayStations,'' Tein said. "I guess that's a new type of weapon of mass destruction.''
Friday news and notes
Well, not much happening here in the District, other than the badly-kept secret that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be sitting on the Eleventh Circuit as a visiting judge in March. That should be fun...
In out-of-district news:
1. Jeffrey Rosen thinks President Obama should be Justice Obama.
2. You gotta read this dissent by Judge Kozinski. Here's a snippet: "It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.
Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment after Black is now gone. The visceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl."
3. And this dissent by 10th Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero: "Were this case simply about an innocent game of canasta, I would readily join the opinion of my majority colleagues outright. However, the abrupt departure of the trial judge from the bench while defense counsel was discussing the testimony of defendant's star witness, when coupled with the court's earlier admonitions to the jury that the same witness's testimony was 'absolutely untrue' and a 'falsity,' can only be interpreted as a clear message to the jury that the witness was not credible or worthy of the court and jury's unbiased consideration." (Apparently, the trial judge left the bench during the defense's closing because it was "his secretary's afternoon to play canasta and he had to get a couple of letters out.") (HT: How Appealing)
In out-of-district news:
1. Jeffrey Rosen thinks President Obama should be Justice Obama.
2. You gotta read this dissent by Judge Kozinski. Here's a snippet: "It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.
Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment after Black is now gone. The visceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl."
3. And this dissent by 10th Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero: "Were this case simply about an innocent game of canasta, I would readily join the opinion of my majority colleagues outright. However, the abrupt departure of the trial judge from the bench while defense counsel was discussing the testimony of defendant's star witness, when coupled with the court's earlier admonitions to the jury that the same witness's testimony was 'absolutely untrue' and a 'falsity,' can only be interpreted as a clear message to the jury that the witness was not credible or worthy of the court and jury's unbiased consideration." (Apparently, the trial judge left the bench during the defense's closing because it was "his secretary's afternoon to play canasta and he had to get a couple of letters out.") (HT: How Appealing)
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Is Justice Kennedy part of the problem for high sentences?
The NY Times has this interesting editorial about Justice Kennedy and his comments criticizing too high sentences being doled out by our justice system:
Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke out against excessive prison sentences this month in California, criticizing the state’s deeply misguided three-strikes law. It was a welcome message, delivered with unusual force. Much of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme Court, which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote.
The overall tone of Justice Kennedy’s address to the Pepperdine University School of Law was “courtly and humorous,” according to The Los Angeles Times. He turned more serious, however, on the subject of incarceration. Sentences in the United States are eight times longer than those handed out in Europe, Justice Kennedy said. California has 185,000 people in prison at a cost of $32,500 each per year, he said. He urged voters and elected officials to compare taxpayer spending on prisons with spending on elementary education.
Justice Kennedy took special aim at the three-strikes law, which puts people behind bars for 25 years to life if they commit a third felony, even a nonviolent one. The law’s sponsor, he said, is the correctional officers’ union, “and that is sick.”
The criticism was on the mark. The state’s prison population has soared as a result of harsh sentencing laws and parole rules. California has been ordered by the courts to bring down the population of its prison system, which is badly overcrowded and unable to provide inmates with adequate medical care.
***
It’s not that the court is insensitive to excessive punishments. It has repeatedly thrown them out — when they are against corporations. In 2003, the year the court rejected Mr. Ewing’s case, it overturned a $145 million punitive damage award against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as so excessive that it violated the 14th Amendment due process clause.
Justice Kennedy is right that elected officials and voters should pay more attention to overincarceration. But courts also need to do their part by enforcing constitutional prohibitions on excessive punishment in cases involving people, as well as corporations.
The Times is of course correct -- sentences are way too long in this country. More needs to be done to limit them... The pendulum has finally started to swing in this direction with Booker and district judges being given discretion in most cases to fashion appropriate sentences. Now we need to abolish min/mans.
On to other Supreme Court news -- Justice Scalia says there is no right to secede. He said so in a letter to a screenwriter (who happens to be the brother of a law blogger). How cool:
Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.
Bro was well ahead of the tea partiers in contemplating impending problems as we racked up massive debt. This doesn't get him an agent or a foot in the door of Hollywood to get his screenplays made into films -- it isn't what you write, but who you know -- but it does make him a prophet of sorts.
So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O'Connor) with this request:
I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.
My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.
At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.
I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally. Explicitly rejecting the right to secede:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
So there you have it. At least one vote solidly on record as saying that there is no right to secede. And it likely comes from a place the right wing secessionists most wanted to have a vote.
And yes, Dan still needs an agent. Because writing great scripts isn't enough if you don't know The Powers That Be on the other coast. And, for what it's worth, his now-completed script of Maine joining Canada is better than his award-winning one about a mis-adventure in space.
Here's the actual letter. Neat.
Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke out against excessive prison sentences this month in California, criticizing the state’s deeply misguided three-strikes law. It was a welcome message, delivered with unusual force. Much of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme Court, which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote.
The overall tone of Justice Kennedy’s address to the Pepperdine University School of Law was “courtly and humorous,” according to The Los Angeles Times. He turned more serious, however, on the subject of incarceration. Sentences in the United States are eight times longer than those handed out in Europe, Justice Kennedy said. California has 185,000 people in prison at a cost of $32,500 each per year, he said. He urged voters and elected officials to compare taxpayer spending on prisons with spending on elementary education.
Justice Kennedy took special aim at the three-strikes law, which puts people behind bars for 25 years to life if they commit a third felony, even a nonviolent one. The law’s sponsor, he said, is the correctional officers’ union, “and that is sick.”
The criticism was on the mark. The state’s prison population has soared as a result of harsh sentencing laws and parole rules. California has been ordered by the courts to bring down the population of its prison system, which is badly overcrowded and unable to provide inmates with adequate medical care.
***
It’s not that the court is insensitive to excessive punishments. It has repeatedly thrown them out — when they are against corporations. In 2003, the year the court rejected Mr. Ewing’s case, it overturned a $145 million punitive damage award against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as so excessive that it violated the 14th Amendment due process clause.
Justice Kennedy is right that elected officials and voters should pay more attention to overincarceration. But courts also need to do their part by enforcing constitutional prohibitions on excessive punishment in cases involving people, as well as corporations.
The Times is of course correct -- sentences are way too long in this country. More needs to be done to limit them... The pendulum has finally started to swing in this direction with Booker and district judges being given discretion in most cases to fashion appropriate sentences. Now we need to abolish min/mans.
On to other Supreme Court news -- Justice Scalia says there is no right to secede. He said so in a letter to a screenwriter (who happens to be the brother of a law blogger). How cool:
Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.
Bro was well ahead of the tea partiers in contemplating impending problems as we racked up massive debt. This doesn't get him an agent or a foot in the door of Hollywood to get his screenplays made into films -- it isn't what you write, but who you know -- but it does make him a prophet of sorts.
So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O'Connor) with this request:
I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.
My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.
At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.
I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally. Explicitly rejecting the right to secede:
I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.
I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.
So there you have it. At least one vote solidly on record as saying that there is no right to secede. And it likely comes from a place the right wing secessionists most wanted to have a vote.
And yes, Dan still needs an agent. Because writing great scripts isn't enough if you don't know The Powers That Be on the other coast. And, for what it's worth, his now-completed script of Maine joining Canada is better than his award-winning one about a mis-adventure in space.
Here's the actual letter. Neat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)