Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Anything going on?

The District seems awfully quiet. There are a couple trials going on, but nothing is jumping off the pages... Is it Holiday shut-down time already?

For your local election coverage, check out Rumpole. (Federal and State appellate lawyer Marisa Tinkler Mendez won a contested election -- congratulations).

For an interesting story about a bond hearing in front of Judge Seltzer, check out Vanessa Blum's article here.

Also, former AUSA Barbara Lagoa was sworn-in last Friday at the 3rd DCA. It was a beautiful investiture with Judge Huck (her father-in-law) swearing her in. Many Federal Judges and prosecutors (including Alex Acosta and former U.S. Attorneys Guy Lewis and Marcos Jiminez) were in attendance. Congrats to Judge Lagoa.

Monday, November 06, 2006

E-file or else!


Julie Kay writes today about the new e-filing system and how less than 60% of lawyers have signed up. The Chief is angry, issuing an order saying that starting today, if lawyers submit filings by paper, they will have to appear before him personally to respond to an order to show case why they failed to file electronically. Yikes!

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Mr. Abramoff goes to Washington

The government really really wants Jack Abramoff close to Washington, D.C.

Ann Coulter



From CNN.com:

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) -- Conservative columnist Ann Coulter has refused to cooperate in an investigation into whether she voted in the wrong precinct, so the case will probably be turned over to prosecutors, Palm Beach County's elections chief said Wednesday.
Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson said his office has been looking into the matter for nearly nine months, and he would turn over the case to the state attorney's office by Friday.
Coulter's attorney did not immediately return a call Wednesday. Nor did her publicist at her publisher, Crown Publishing.

Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
Anderson's office received a complaint in February that Coulter voted in the wrong precinct during a February 7 Palm Beach town council election.
Anderson said a letter was sent to Coulter on March 27 requesting that she clarify her address for the voting records "or face the possibility of her voter registration being rescinded." Three more letters were sent to Coulter and her attorney, but she has yet to respond with the information requested, Anderson said.
In July, Anderson said, he received a letter from Coulter's attorney, Marcos Daniel Jimenez D'Clouet. The letter said the attorney would only discuss the matter in person or by telephone because, he complained, Anderson had given details to the media. Anderson said the matter had to be discussed in writing.
The right-wing commentator also authored a book that said some September 11 widows were "enjoying their husbands' deaths."

Looks like our former U.S. Attorney and previous guest-blogger will be representing her...

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Boo.


Happy Halloween. In that spirit, the government wants its witnesses to wear disguises. Ze'ev Rosenstein's lawyers, Roy Black and Howard Srebnick, think this is a bad idea... Here is the intro from their response to the government motion for its witnesses to wear "light disguises":

Under the government’s proposed procedures, the defense may not conduct its own investigation of the surveillance officers, and instead must accept the government’s claim that "none of these officers have . . . information in their background that would provide ammunition for cross-examination . . . ." [Government’s Motion at 7].

Also under the government’s proposed procedures, the defense and the jury may not see or assess the true emotions and expressions of the surveillance officers while they testify.

Finally, the defense may not cross-examine these anonymous and veiled foreign witnesses about their procedures and techniques, and must accept their testimony that they were at all times able to accurately observe and identify people and what they were doing.

***

President Eisenhower once described face-to-face confrontation as part of the code of his hometown of Abilene, Kansas. In Abilene, he said, it was necessary to "[m]eet anyone face to face with whom you disagree. You could not sneak up on him from behind, or do any damage to him, without suffering the penalty of an outraged citizenry . . . In this country, if someone dislikes you, or accuses you, he must come up in front. He cannot hide behind the shadow." Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1017-18 (1988).

A wig, make up, and fake facial hair is not "light disguise," as the government states. It is a complete costume, the shadow to which President Eisenhower refers. After all, the purpose of the disguise is to make the witness look like someone else entirely – to be unrecognizable. In Israel, and presumably in this Court if allowed, the witness will not only wear full facial disguise, but s/he will also wear a turtleneck shirt and a large overcoat, so that only a fake face is seen. If the witness fidgets, the coat will hide it. If he is a bald male and his head perspires when nervous, the wig will hide it. If his mouth twitches slightly, the fake facial hair will hide it. If she is a female and her ears turn red during testimony, the wig will hide it. If the veins on the neck enlarge out of fear or anger, the turtleneck will hide it. If the face turns pale during testimony, the make up will hide it. Essentially, the person on the witness stand will be a fake.

Lots of other good stuff in this response. Any bets on what Judge D will do?