"Feds: Miami terror cell practiced with paintball"

That's the headline in this AP article about the Miami 7 from Liberty City who are charged with conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower. My favorite part of the article:

Some were clearly bewildered by what had happened to them. One of those arrested in June 2006 even asked the FBI agents interrogating him whether he could have some of the marijuana he had been carrying, according to the statements filed recently in federal court.

That defendant, 23-year-old Naudimar Herrera, asked for ''a rub of my green'' after the agents showed him a videotape of the group swearing loyalty to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, at the direction of an FBI informant the men knew as Mohammed.

''Herrera said that he needed the substance to calm his nerves. . . . Herrera was provided with a bottle of water to drink and was allowed to take a restroom break,'' an FBI summary said.

Classic.

More thoughts on the Padilla jury

As detailed below, a bunch of different blogs are commenting on the Padilla jury. And we have had some interesting comments too. A person who claims to have been on the Libby jury has written in:


J said...
On the Libby jury, we all wore red on Valentine's Day. This jury is wearing red white and blue for the Fourth of July. It wasn't a sign of anything then and it should not be read as one now. It's simply a way to relieve the tension and boredom of being in the courtroom for all those hours. It's hard to keep up, believe me, when it's summer and you're thinking about what to put on the grill rather than what a poor case the government is putting on.
1:04 PM


Interesting. I'm swamped right now so I can't comment further, but I will try to get to it this weekend.

Happy birthday SDFLA blog

It's been two great years doing this blog. We started Fourth of July weekend two years ago, and since then readership has shot up (last year we were averaging about 175 hits a day, now we are up to well over 300 per day), a bunch of other local blogs have started to cover the courts, and we continue to have fun doing it.

Here is our first post, arguing that the President should appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court (apparently, he didn't listen!).

And here is our one year anniversary post.

Our second year anniversary post, about the jurors dressing up in the Padilla trial, has gotten a bunch of attention. Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy, the Wall Street Journal legal blog, Rumpole, Discourse, The National Review, TalkLeft, and a bunch of others for linking to that post. Our numbers are way up because of it...

Dress up day...

So, I thought I was being extremely festive today... not only did I dress up my four year old daughter in red, white, and blue for camp, I even wore a red tie to work. That's nothing though.

In the Jose Padilla trial, jurors showed up today all dressed up. Row one in red. Row two in white. And row three in blue. I'm not kidding.

And this isn't the first time the jury has dressed up. A week back, all of the jurors (save one) wore black.

So what do you make of this. On the one hand, the jury might just be having some fun. This is a long trial and it's not a one hour Law and Order show. It's boring.

Perhaps the jury is unified, which might be a poor sign for the defense. If everyone is thinking the same way at such an early stage, defense lawyers get nervous. Or the prosecution might be concerned because this is obviously a happy jury. Happy juries during a terrorism trial might not be good.

The trial is in recess until next Monday so the lawyers will have plenty of time to make themselves crazy over what all this means.

Any thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July!

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson says that in addition to the black and the red, white, and blue, last Friday all the women wore pink and the men blue. What is going on? Anderson also details how the government expert Rohan Gunaratna was scolded by Judge Cooke today for appearing on CNN yesterday. Dan Christensen and Jay Weaver explain here that the expert is under attack by the defense.

Thoughts on Scooter

President Bush's commutation of Scooter isn't that surprising. But his comments about why he commuted the sentence are:

[C]ritics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury....

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, two years of probation and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison....

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

I agree with the President on these points. Defendants shouldn't be punished for conduct which they have not agreed to or which hasn't been proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. First time non-violent offenders in many cases should not receive jail time. There are alternatives to incarceration that work in many many cases and will work for Scooter Libby. We don't have to worry that he will be reoffending.

The problem with the President's reasoning is that the Sentencing Guidelines prescribe this result and his administration continues to push these guidelines in every case, no matter the individual circumstances. This, of course, is wrong -- not just in Scooter's case, but in a great deal of cases. I hope sentencing judges and prosecutors look at the President's comments and see that the Guidelines need not be applied mechanistically in every case.