Quick hits

1. SFL covers Minkow. So does Curt Anderson.

2. The border search exception applies to laptops, even if they take it to a facility 170 miles away.

3. No 11th Circuit en banc review for the health care case.

4. The Bronx Zoo Cobra was caught.

5. Well, if Dr. Drew thinks the airport scans are fine, then I'm sure they are.

Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta writes letter about Jeffrey Epstein deal and Roy Black responds

Wow, this is getting ugly.

The Daily Beast broke the story here.

And one of Epstein's lawyers, Roy Black, has responded to Acosta's letter (page 1, and page 2, and page 3 here) in the Palm Beach Daily News.

Both letters are truly remarkable, and I've never seen anything like it. From the PBDN:

Attorney Roy Black is disputing claims that he, and other attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein, pried into federal prosecutors’ personal lives in attempting to disqualify them from investigating the billionaire sex offender. Black also denies Epstein’s attorneys “negotiated in bad faith,” while attempting to reach an agreement with federal prosecutors. *** According to Acosta, now dean of the Florida International University College of Law, federal prosecutors and agents met with Black in the summer of 2007. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead guilty to state felony charges resulting in two years imprisonment, registration as a sex offender and restitution for the victims or prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed, Acosta said, was that Epstein’s defense team launched “a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. “I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered,” Acosta said in his letter. Among the “legal superstars” on Epstein’s defense team: Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Acosta said that one member of the defense team warned him “the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter.” Black said he’s never heard anyone mention writing a book about the Epstein case. “Mr. Acosta claims we negotiated in bad faith by appealing to the Department of Justice in Washington,” Black said. “Any person under investigation by a United States attorney, meaning any of the 94 such offices in the country, has the right to seek review by the Department of Justice and it is so provided for in their manual. Thus I cannot imagine invoking this right could be construed as bad faith. “In our system of justice, people are given the right of appeal and there should be no implication of wrong doing by exercising it. “Finally Mr. Acosta mentions we looked for personal peccadilloes of prosecutors,” Black said. “I am not sure what he refers to but this never happened. We did point out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. Not only is there nothing wrong with this but it is a necessary part of the process. There will always be people who abuse the great power of the government and we can not stand by silently when it occurs.”

Justice Scalia gets ticket in car accident

Apparently he was following a little too closely to the car in front of him:

The accident happened just before 9 a.m. on what was to be a big day for the jurist: The nation’s highest court was hearing arguments in the massive Wal-Mart gender discrimination case. According to U.S. Park Police, Scalia was driving south on the parkway approaching Roosevelt Bridge when he rear-ended a car that had stopped for traffic, triggering a chain reaction. Brooke Salkoff saw it all go down. The former NBC reporter told us she was just behind Scalia’s vehicle, a shiny black BMW in the left lane. “It slammed into the car in front of his, which pushed the other two forward,” and caused them all to skew into the right lane, she said. Now, just as when you're in a fancy restaurant and everyone turns their head to see who walked in, it’s only natural that everyone driving along a major commuter route out of McLean would want to rubberneck at something like this. Salkoff did, as her car inched past, and was rewarded by a surprising glimpse of a familiar face. Scalia was in a dress shirt, no jacket, with an unknotted bowtie hanging around his neck — and, interestingly enough, turned out to be driving himself. The car in front of his appeared pretty badly banged up, the other two less so. Scalia made it to the bench, though, in time for arguments at 10 a.m., a court spokeswoman said. No doubt in Salkoff’s mind that Scalia was at fault, as the driver who failed to brake. “I think that’s an originalist interpretation,” she quipped. Indeed, said the Park Police’s Sgt. David Schlosser, the justice got a ticket for following too closely. Fine: $70, plus a $20 special assessment, or, said Schlosser, “he can contest it in court.”

I volunteer to represent him for free.

Unbelievable

5-4 per Justice Thomas in Connick v. Thompson:

Held: A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation.

One reason given is that lawyers learn enough about Brady from law school and the bar exam. Justice Ginsburg for the dissenters rightfully blasts this: The Court nevertheless holds Canton’s example inapposite. It maintains that professional obligations, ethics rules, and training—including on-the-job training—set attorneys apart from other municipal employees, includingrookie police officers. Ante, at 12–15. Connick “had every incentive at trial to attempt to establish” that he could reasonably rely on the professional education and status of his staff. Cf. ante, at 10, n. 6. But the jury heard and rejected his argument to that effect. Tr. 364, 576–577, 834–835.

The Court advances Connick’s argument with greater clarity, but with no greater support. On what basis can one be confident that law schools acquaint students with prosecutors’ unique obligation under Brady? Whittaker told the jury he did not recall covering Brady in his criminal procedure class in law school. Tr. 335. Dubelier’s alma mater, like most other law faculties, does not make criminal procedure a required course. Connick suggested that the bar examination ensures that new attorneys will know what Brady demands. Tr. 835. Research indicates, however, that from 1980 to the present, Brady questions have not accounted for even 10% of the total points in the criminal law and procedure section of any administration of the Louisiana Bar Examination. A person sitting for the Louisiana Bar Examination, moreover, need pass only five of the exam’s nine sections.23 One can qualify for admission to the professionwith no showing of even passing knowledge of criminal law and procedure.

The majority’s suggestion that lawyers do not need Brady training because they “are equipped with the tools to find, interpret, and apply legal principles,” ante, at 17– 18, “blinks reality” and is belied by the facts of this case. See Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 13. Connick himself recog-nized that his prosecutors, because of their inexperience, were not so equipped. Indeed, “understanding and com-plying with Brady obligations are not easy tasks, and theappropriate way to resolve Brady issues is not always self-evident.” Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 6. “Brady compliance,”therefore, “is too much at risk, and too fundamental to the fairness of our criminal justice system, to be taken for granted,” and “training remains critical.” Id., at 3, 7.

Here's the AP article.

Only in Miami

I just love these only in Miami stories about the Jose Canseco having his twin brother Ozzie standing in for him at a celebrity fight and about Luke Campbell running for mayor.

If you want to stick to the regular federal news, well then here's a story for you about why it's so difficult to get a cellphone into the courthouse.

Ft. Lauderale federal courthouse described as "worst" by "federal officials"

The Sun-Sentinel has the story of renewed plans to build a new federal courthouse in Broward:

Broward County could get two new courthouses on the New River in downtown Fort Lauderdale instead of just one — a potential government investment of at least $500 million. A high-powered task force of federal judges, lawyers and politicians has revived a dormant proposal to build a new federal courthouse. They have their eyes on Broward County's waterfront land for a federal-county court campus next to the riverfront jail. Broward County commissioners voted last year to build a $328 million county courthouse on the existing county court site, south of the river, just west of Third Avenue. The new federal courthouse would go somewhere nearby, on that same block of county land.

***

Federal officials decided years ago to replace the existing federal courthouse, which sits on Broward Boulevard, abutting Third Avenue. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal buildings must have safety buffers at least 100 feet wide — a requirement the existing courthouse doesn't meet. It's also woefully small, officials complain, and was described by federal officials on a recent visit as "the worst that they have encountered,'' according to a March 15 task force memo written by Scherer. Fort Lauderdale "has moved to the 8th position on a list of 100 communities needing a new federal courthouse,'' Scherer's memo said. That would put it in line for possible funding in the 2016-2018 timeframe, unless it can be bumped up, as the task force hopes. The group also believes building a joint project could reduce costs, with both courthouses benefiting from the same security and roadway work.

Pictures from Friday's event

SFL posted some of my amateur cell phone pictures over at his blog, but Judge Scott Silverman took some great shots:

Okay, Judge Silverman didn't take the Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan picture, but both panels discussed them. See what you missed.

Friday afternoon quick hits

1. The symposium was really interesting, especially Rumpole and SFL trying to partipicate by speaker phone and Twitter.

2. Another book on legal writing. I disagree with Russ Guberman's point here:

Has legal writing changed over the years? And if so, for the better or for the worse?
I hate to mythologize the past, but legal writing is changing for the worse. The advent of technology has ushered in an era of cutting-and-pasting that makes the finished product often read like a patchwork quilt, or as what Judge Ruggero Aldisert famously called a “promiscuous uttering of citations.”

3. Via How Appealing, the D.C. Circuit takes another shot at the 4th Amendment here:

"We conclude it was not clearly established in 2002 that the strip search of a person being introduced into a detention facility violated the Fourth Amendment."

Judge Judith Rogers dissented: "This is the first time a circuit court of appeals has suggested that the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution against unreasonable searches do not extend to an individual arrested for a non-violent minor offense who is awaiting arraignment apart from the general population of detainees, and is subjected to a strip search in the absence of reasonable suspicion he is hiding contraband or weapons."

I'm out. Have a nice weekend.