Still trying to recover from eating so much this weekend.....
In the meantime, there's some good stuff from our local reporters:
1. Vanessa Blum had this weekend story about Jose Padilla and torture.
2. Jay Weaver covers the Charles Taylor motion to dismiss (by AFPD Miguel Caridad; response by AUSA Karen Rochlin).
3. Julie Kay has the scoop on who has put in for Magistrate Judge in Ft. Lauderdale. So far, we have Assistant federal defenders Patrick Hunt, Stewart Abrams, and Dave Brannon. From the US Attorney's office we Robin Rosenbaum and Patty Diaz. There are rumors, according to the article, that a private practitioner has also put in. Anyone know who?
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
Monday, February 05, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Thursday, February 01, 2007
"He's waiting for Fidel to die so he can meet him in hell and beat him up."
A quote from one of my favorite lawyers, Jack Blumenfeld, about his client Jose Battle. Here's another interesting article from Category 305.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)