Inside baseball at SCOTUS

Tom Goldstein has all the goods here on how SCOTUSblog got it right on Health Care day and CNN/FOX got it wrong.

One thing that is totally annoying:

The Supreme Court will not grant SCOTUSblog a press credential. Lyle Denniston is the only member of our team permitted in the press area; he has a press credential because of his reporting for WBUR in Boston. There are six other members of our team nearby, running nine computers on eight separate Internet connections.

Why wouldn't the Court give SCOTUSblog access when it is the site most people are relying on for SCOTUS news?  And to boot, the Court won't email the opinion:

The Court’s own technical staff prepares to load the opinion on to the Court’s website. In years past, the Court would have emailed copies of the decision to the Solicitor General and the parties’ lawyers once it was announced. But now it relies only on its website, where opinions are released approximately two minutes later. The week before, the Court declined our request that it distribute this opinion to the press by email; it has complete faith in the exceptional effort it has made to ensure that the website will not fail.
But it does. At this moment, the website is the subject of perhaps greater demand than any other site on the Internet – ever. It is the one and only place where anyone in the country not at the building – including not just the public, but press editors and the White House – can get the ruling. And millions of people are now on the site anxiously looking for the decision. They multiply the burden of their individual visits many times over – hitting refresh again, and again, and again. In the face of the crushing demand, the Court cannot publish its own decision.
The opinion will not appear on the website for a half-hour. So everyone in the country not personally at 1 First St., NE in Washington, DC is completely dependent on the press to get the decision right.

The article explains how CNN and Fox do not at all get it right.  Fun read.
Another fun article, but not related to the law, is this piece on the '83 Fleer baseball card set:

A fan here named Scott Mortimer has his own pursuit, with July 31 as the date to watch. That is when the Class AA Erie Seawolves come to Manchester to play the New Hampshire Fisher Cats. The hitting coach for Erie is Jerry Martin, a former outfielder who hit .251 for five teams from 1974 to 1984. Scott Mortimer needs him.
Mortimer, 41, is a stay-at-home father on a worldwide baseball scavenger hunt. He is trying to get autographs on all 660 cards in the 1983 Fleer baseball card set. After six years of trying, he is down to his final 99. One of the blank cards is Martin’s.
“I don’t know what kind of person Jerry Martin is, if he’d be willing to sign the card, if he would even pop out of the dugout before the umpires come out,” Mortimer said at his home last Sunday. “But that’s part of the excitement.”
Mortimer calls it the 83F Project and runs a blog with images of the autographs. He is part of a tribe of collectors who put their twist on a child’s hobby, mining a subset of the industry for fun, not profit. He trades with other collectors pursuing their own autographed sets, and has friends in other countries — scouts, in a way — who keep a lookout for his targets.

Judge Carnes...

...starts off his latest opinion (Larry Butler vs. Sheriff of Palm Beach County) this way:

In one of his ballads, Jim Croce warned that there are four things that you
just don’t do: “You don’t tug on Superman’s cape/ You don’t spit into the wind/
You don’t pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger/ And you don’t mess around
with Jim.” He could have added a fifth warning to that list: “And you don’t let a
pistol-packing mother catch you naked in her daughter’s closet.”

It gets better:

It all started with a phone call.2 Nineteen-year-old Uzuri Collier called
Larry Butler, who was of a similar age, and invited him to her house. Butler
responded to the invitation the way most young men over the age of consent
would have—he went. Once Butler was at Uzuri’s house, he and she consented to
watch television for a while. Then they consented to do what young couples alone
in a house have been consenting to do since the memory of man (and woman)
runneth not to the contrary. The record does not disclose how long these two
young people had known each other in the dictionary sense, but that afternoon in
Uzuri’s bedroom they also knew each other in the biblical sense. While doing so,
and while clothed in the manner that is customary in such matters, which is to say
not at all, they heard someone coming into the house.

The opinion is packed with this sort of fun writing, and it ends this way:

The amended complaint and Butler’s briefs leave no doubt that he feels
mistreated, and with what appears to be some justification. If the allegations are
true, Collier’s treatment of Butler was badder than old King Kong and meaner
than a junkyard dog. She might even have acted like the meanest hunk of woman
anybody had ever seen. Still, the fact that the mistreatment was mean does not
mean that the mistreatment was under color of law. Because the alleged
mistreatment of Butler was not inflicted under color of law, the district court
correctly dismissed his § 1983 claims. Butler will have to seek his remedies under
state law and in state court.

Florida Bar proposes advisory opinion re 2255 waivers

Back in September, the Florida Bar's Professional Ethics Committee voted 13-11 that criminal defense lawyers could not ethically advise their clients to waive their 2255 (habeas) rights in a plea agreement (see Blog coverage here). Over strong opposition by the government, the Bar just proposed this advisory opinion on the subject:

A member of The Florida Bar has requested an opinion regarding the ethical propriety of offering or advising a criminal defendant to accept a plea offer in which the criminal defendant waives past or future ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. The committee first notes that whether particular plea agreements are lawful, enforceable and meet constitutional requirements are legal questions outside the scope of an ethics opinion. Reviewing these issues in light of ethics considerations, the committee concludes that both offering and recommending acceptance of such a plea offer is improper. ***

The Committee concludes that a criminal defense lawyer has a personal conflict of interest when advising a client regarding waiving the right to later collateral proceedings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. The lawyer has a personal interest in not having the lawyer's own representation of the client determined to be ineffective under constitutional standards. This conflict is not one that the client should be asked to waive as noted in the comment to Rule 4-1.7, which states: "when a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the representation under the circumstances, the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client's consent." A disinterested lawyer would be unlikely to reach the conclusion that the criminal defense lawyer could give objective advice about that lawyer's own performance.

Regarding the prosecutor's conduct in offering the plea agreement, the committee agrees with those states that find that the conduct is impermissible as both prejudicial to the administration of justice and assisting the criminal defense lawyer in violating the Rules of Professional Conduct under Rule 4-8.4(d) and 4-8.4(a), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The Committee believes that the vast majority of prosecutors act in good faith and would not intentionally commit misconduct. However, some prosecutorial misconduct can occur unintentionally and, in the rare instance, even intentionally. Prosecutorial misconduct may be known only to the prosecutor in question, e.g., when the prosecutor has failed to disclose exculpatory information. The Committee's opinion is that it is prejudicial to the administration of justice for a prosecutor to require the criminal defendant to waive claims of prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecutor is in the best position, and indeed may be the only person, to be aware that misconduct has taken place.

As I've said before, it's odd to me that the government opposed this opinion:

Why do prosecutors attempt to have criminal defense lawyers waive their clients' 2255 rights in a plea agreement? How can a criminal defense ethically tell his client that the client should waive a claim that he (the lawyer) is ineffective? There are conflict issues both for the prosecutor and the defense lawyer here. And yet, the government pushes these waivers, forcing the lawyer in most cases to either plead straight up. Judge Roettger was great on these issues. He never let a defendant waive his appellate rights. Back then prosecutors didn't ask for 2255 waivers (or Booker waivers). Judge Roettger would cross the appellate waiver out of the plea agreements and ask prosecutors whether they worked for the Department of Justice or Injustice. He asked them why shouldn't an appellate court review his rulings at sentencing. What if he made a mistake?

Well, now it's unethical for prosecutors to ask or defense lawyers to advise clients to sign 2255 waivers. Congrats to all of the lawyers who pushed for this rule. I know Michael Caruso spoke at the Florida Bar meeting in support of the opinion. Also, Bruce Reinhart was the member of the Florida Bar who requested than an opinion be issued.

Fourth of July

Hope everyone had a nice holiday yesterday.  Those in San Diego were supposedly disappointed that all the fireworks for the show went off at once, but it looks pretty cool to me:



Meantime, everyone is still debating "tax" or "penalty." Romney says it's now a tax because the Supreme Court said so, but he is not happy about it:

Emphasizing his disagreement with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold President Obama’s healthcare law, Mitt Romney criticized Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday, stating that Roberts reached a conclusion that was inappropriate and “took a departure” from sound reasoning. Before the healthcare ruling, Romney had praised Roberts. His website says he would “nominate justices in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito,” candidates who “exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written.” But Romney displayed a cooler attitude toward Roberts in his interview with CBS News’ Jan Crawford on Wednesday near his vacation retreat of Wolfeboro, N.H. When Crawford asked whether he would nominate a justice like Roberts, now that the chief justice voted to uphold the president’s healthcare law, Romney answered that he “certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew” was going to come out with a decision that I “vehemently disagreed with.” Roberts’ decision to side with the liberals of the court, Romney added, gave the impression his “decision was made not based upon [a] constitutional foundation but instead, [a] political consideration about the relationship between the branches of government.” Romney called Roberts “a very bright person,” according to a transcript provided by CBS News, and said he would look to nominate justices with intelligence who “believe in following the Constitution.”

Judge Cooke sides with Docs over Glocks

Jay Weaver covers the story here:

A federal judge has blocked the state of Florida from enforcing a new law pushed by firearm advocates that banned thousands of doctors from discussing gun ownership with their patients.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who had already issued a preliminary injunction last September, made her decision permanent late Friday when she ruled in favor of groups of physicians who asserted the state violated their free speech rights. She said the law was so “vague” that it violated the First Amendment rights of doctors, noting the legislation’s privacy provisions “fail to provide any standards for practitioners to follow.”
The physicians’ lawsuit, an ideological battle between advocates of free speech and the right to bear arms, has been dubbed “Docs vs. Glocks.” The state Department of Health could appeal her summary judgment, which addressed legislation signed into law last year by Gov. Rick Scott.
In her 25-page ruling, Cooke clearly sided with the physicians, saying evidence showed that physicians began “self-censoring” because of the “chilling” effect of the legislation.
“What is curious about this law — and what makes it different from so many other laws involving practitioners’ speech — is that it aims to restrict a practitioner’s ability to provide truthful, non-misleading information to a patient, whether relevant or not at the time of the consult with the patient,” Cooke wrote, citing the benefit of such “preventive medicine.”
“The state asserts that it has an interest in protecting the exercise of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Cooke wrote in another section about the Second Amendment issue. “I do not disagree that the government has such an interest in protecting its citizens’ fundamental rights. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, however, simply does not interfere with the right to keep and bear arms.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/02/2879089/miami-federal-judge-sides-with.html#storylink=twt#storylink=cpy

Bill Matthewman sworn in today

Congrats to our newest Magistrate Judge. Judge Matthewman will be sitting in West Palm Beach, along with another new Magistrate -- Dave Brannon.

End of Term

The Supreme Court is now on summer break till October. There are a bunch of good articles about the end of the Term, but the place to go is SCOTUSBlog, which has pages and pages of stats-- really anything you could ask about the Term is broken down statistically. Here are some of the take-away stats highlighted by the blog:

The Sixth Circuit continued its abysmal streak in the Supreme Court. Between OT08 and OT10, cases originating in the Sixth Circuit were affirmed only once in 18 attempts. All 5 cases from the Sixth Circuit were reversed during OT11. [Page 3].

The Court released a rare 5-4 summary reversal this Term in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock — a rarity because four Justices can usually grant certiorari in a case and force oral arguments, thereby eliminating the need for a dissenting opinion. [Page 5].

The Court has decided fewer merits cases after oral argument, 65, than it has during any time in the last twenty years. The Court was already cruising to a relatively low number of merits cases when it finished granting cases for oral argument during OT11 in January, but the dismissals of Vasquez v. United States and First American Financial v. Edwards, the rebriefing of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, and the eventual consolidation of Jackson v. Hobbs with Miller v. Alabama for purposes of the opinion have resulted in the Court issuing a record low number of opinions in fully briefed merits cases. [Page 9].

Although it issued a low number of signed merits cases, the Court did released a high number of summary reversals, 10. From OT00-OT10, the Court averaged 6 summary reversals per Term. [Page 10].

Justices Scalia and Thomas have finished the Term with the highest rate of agreement on the judgment across all cases. They agreed 93.3% of the time. Justices Scalia and Ginsburg finished with the lowest rate, agreeing 56.0% of the time. [Page 23].

The two fastest signed majority opinions of OT11 were authored by Justice Scalia. He produced Greene v. Fisher in 28 days and RadLax v. Amalgamated Bank in 36 days. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan each authored 2 of the top 10 fastest opinions. [Page 27].

Fascinating stuff. I thought this stat was particularly interesting:

Justice Kennedy is, for the fourth consecutive Term, the Justice most likely to appear in the majority. This Term he voted with the majority in 69 out of the 74 cases he voted in, marking the second-highest percentage of the past five Terms (93.2%) and falling only to his frequency in the majority from last Term (93.8%). Chief Justice Roberts, who himself has become a mainstay of recent majority opinions, had the second-highest frequency in the majority (91.9%). In 3 of the last 4 Terms, the Chief Justice has been either the most likely or second-most likely Justice to appear in the majority of a decision. Just as she was last Term, Justice Ginsburg is the Justice least likely to vote with the majority; she votes with the majority in 69.3% of all cases.

69 out of 74 for Kennedy is amazing. It really is his Court. One big asterisk though in that he lost the biggest case of the Term. It must kill Kennedy that he had to dissent in the Health Care cases and that he couldn't convince Roberts to come back to the conservative Justices.

Enjoy the summer SCOTUS.

The Health Care Ruling is a Big win for....

...the Supreme Court. 

The Chief Justice, by joining the left and upholding the law, saved the Supreme Court from being looked at as only a political body.  If it would have struck down the ACA on political 5-4 voting lines, it would have been Bush v. Gore all over again (which was the Rehnquist Court, not the Roberts Court), and the Court would have been delegitimized.  But now, even though Republicans and Democrats will fight over this in the upcoming elections, the Court will be seen as more neutral than in the past.

"It's our Super Bowl."

That's how Tom Goldstein describes today on the live blog over at SCOTUSBlog, which is worth headed to right now. 

I'm actually very excited to see what the Court does on the lying about a military honor case...

I'll hopefully post something this afternoon with some discussion about the cases today.

UPDATE -- the reason you should have been at SCOTUSBlog instead of CNN is that CNN reported "Individual Mandate Struck Down" for about 6 minutes before realizing its mistake.  So bad.  Goldstein, Howe & Company got it right from the get go.  Bloggers are better than MSM....

UPDATE 2 -- Here's the lengthy healthcare opinion.

P.S. Valor Act struck down...

Judge Robin Rosenbaum confirmed!

92-3 by the Senate. Well done and congratulations!

Update-- to answer the questions in the comments, per Glenn Sugameli, the only No votes (GOP Sens. Lee [UT], DeMint [SC] and Paul [KY]) were from those who have been continuing to vote NO on all judicial nominees in protest of three President Obama Executive branch nominees

11th Circuit decides whether the "act of masturbating while sitting beside another person ... satisf[ies] the 'with another person' requirement of the statute."

It does not.  The Federal Public Defender's office deserves a hand for this win.

The facts of USA v. Randolph Scott:

In a one-count information, the government charged Scott with “knowingly
attempt[ing] to commit an unnatural and lascivious act with another person, that is,
masturbating while attempting to touch another person . . . .” Scott pleaded not
guilty and the parties consented to a bench trial before a magistrate judge. At trial,
the government called Lauren Wyscaver as its only witness. She testified that she
was sitting in a chair in the waiting room of Miami Veterans Affairs Hospital
when Scott approached her and asked if he could sit in the chair next to her. She
agreed, and the two began talking about their respective military service, why they
were at the hospital, and the weather. There were four or five other people in the
waiting room, which had approximately 20 chairs.
According to Wyscaver, within the first few minutes of their conversation,
Scott “tried to touch [her] ankle, but [she] pulled away.” Wyscaver became
uncomfortable and started to ignore Scott, but he continued talking to her. Scott
told Wyscaver that he thought she was pretty and offered to pay her to give him
her phone number. Wyscaver testified that Scott then, as “nonchalantly as you can
do it,” reached down into his pants and started masturbating. “Once he did that,”
she said, “I sat up and I walked into the nurse’s triage room because I was
frightened.” Wyscaver eventually reported Scott’s conduct to a security guard.
Based on that evidence, the magistrate judge concluded that Scott had
attempted to “masturbat[e] or fondl[e] himself with another person who is”
Wyscaver. For that reason, the magistrate judge ruled that Scott had violated the
Assimilative Crimes Act by attempting to commit an “unnatural and lascivious act
with another person” in violation of Fla. Stat. Ann. § 800.02. The magistrate
judge sentenced Scott to 68 days in prison, followed by one year of probation.
The district court affirmed his conviction and sentence, and Scott now appeals
only his conviction.

So what did the court decide:

The government argues that Scott was masturbating “with” Wyscaver
because “he was sexually attracted to her” and because he stared at her while
masturbating. But the “with another person” element of section 800.02 is not
satisfied simply because a defendant is sexually aroused or erotically inspired by
another person. If mere arousal or inspiration were enough, Conforti would have
come out the other way. Nor does the fact that a defendant stares at another
person while committing an act mean that the defendant committed that act with
another person.
Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is
insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Scott “knowingly attempt[ed]
to commit an unnatural and lascivious act with another person, that is,
masturbating while attempting to touch another person,” which is what the
information alleged. A reasonable factfinder could not have found that Scott was
masturbating “with another person” within the meaning of section 800.02.

Well, there you go -- staring at another person doesn't mean you committed an act with that person.

Putting aside all of the funny one-liners, can someone please explain to me why the feds brought this case in the first place, which is unlike the ICE chief, Anthony V. Mangione who is apparently set to plead guilty.

On a separate note -- GOOD LUCK TO ROBIN ROSENBAUM TODAY.

Where will you be this morning?

At the Heat Parade?

Or at ScotusBlog live blogging the Supreme Court opinions as they come out?

Should be a very exciting Monday morning.

If you are bored waiting for either, here's a good piece about Scalia's dissents.  Some highlights:

Morrison v. Olson (1988): The Court voted to uphold the Independent Counsel Act; Scalia was the only dissenter.

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.

PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin (2001): A lawsuit brought by the disabled golfer Casey Martin, who wanted to be allowed to ride in a golf cart between shots, something that the P.G.A. prohibited at the time. The Court ruled in Martin’s favor.

If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf—and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point—then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,” to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a “fundamental” aspect of golf.

And here's a picture of the police in front of the federal courthouse this morning:

 I feel much safer!

Robin Rosenbaum's vote set for Tuesday

At 11:00am on Tuesday, June 26, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of Executive Calendar #652, the nomination of Robin Rosenbaum, of Florida, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.  There will be 30 minutes for debate prior to a vote on confirmation of the nomination. Senators should expect the vote to begin at approximately noon on Tuesday.

GOOD LUCK!

Hat Tip -- Glenn Sugameli.

Crack, Fines, & the Supreme Court

No health care opinions, but two criminal law opinions today, both favoring the defense.  From ScotusBlog:

We have the opinion in Dorsey and Hill, the Fair Sentencing Act cases.  The opinion is by Breyer.  The Seventh Circuit is vacated and remanded.  The vote is 5-4.  Justice Scalia dissents, joined by the Chief and Alito and Thomas.
The Court holds that the FSA's new mandatory minimums applies to sentences for crack cocaine imposed after the Act for pre-Act crimes.  Dorsey and Hill have the more traditional line-up that we have come to expect in 5-4 cases.

The full opinion is at this link.

Re Fines and Apprendi:

Justice Sotomayor has opinion. The rule of Apprendi v. NJ applies to the imposition of criminal fines. The First Circuit is reversed. The vote is 6-3. Justice Breyer dissents, joined by Kennedy and Alito.

The full opinion is available at this link.

Don't drink the Thallium

From the 11th yesterday in Trepal v. Florida, a death penalty case:

In 1991, a Florida jury convicted Trepal, a sophisticated chemist and Mensa member, of murdering his neighbor Peggy Carr and attempting to murder six other members of Carr's family. Trepal poisoned the victims by adding the toxic element thallium to bottles of Coca-Cola in the Carrs' home.

Trepal’s trial lasted a month, with more than 70 witnesses together providing overwhelming evidence of Trepal’s guilt. For example, several independent witnesses chronicled Trepal’s long-running conflicts with and animosity toward the Carr family. Evidence established Trepal’s extensive
knowledge of chemistry, as well as his possession of chemistry laboratory equipment, a number of toxic chemicals, and a homemade journal on poisons and poison detection in human organs. Finally, multiple experts uniformly testified that (1) the victims were poisoned by thallium, (2) thallium was found in both the empty and unopened Coca-Cola bottles in the victims’ home, and (3) thallium was found in a brown bottle in Trepal’s garage. Thallium is a heavy metallic element that is both rare and toxic to humans. When dissolved, it is odorless and tasteless. A lethal dose of thallium is approximately 14 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, which for an average person is around 1 gram of thallium.

The appeal involves fascinating Giglio claims regarding the FBI chemist, but in the end, the court finds them harmless.  Harmless error regarding a lying chemist in a death penalty case seems like a hard (thallium?) pill to swallow.