Monday, August 13, 2007

Final arguments in Manuel Noriega

To be extradited to France or to go back home to Panama; that's the question for Judge Hoeveler.

Jose Padilla closing arguments...

...are underway.

The Government is up first, followed by Adham Hassoun.

Tomorrow will be Kifah Wael Jayyousi and then Jose Padilla. The Government will finish up with rebuttal.

Judge Cooke has decided to read the jury instructions before closing argument. I've had this done a couple times and don't really have a preference... Any thoughts on whether this is a good or bad thing? Does it matter?

Saturday, August 11, 2007

"Federal Judge Accused of Religious Bias"

The federal judge referred to in the headline for this DBR article (which is going to be published Monday) is William Zloch:

Fort Lauderdale, Fla., attorney Loring Spolter is accusing U.S. District Judge William Zloch of bias in two employment discrimination cases, citing his deep religious beliefs, and wants the judge removed from the cases.

In a 110-page motion for recusal filed last month, Spolter cited Zloch's hiring of several law clerks from Ave Maria Law School, a donation to the Roman Catholic school and his attendance at several junkets for judges sponsored by conservative organizations.

I've had trials and a number of contested hearings in front of the former Chief Judge and have always found him to be fair and impartial. Definitely a no-nonsense judge, which is good. I think he lets both sides try their case. No complaints here...

To cite where a judge hires law clerks is just ridiculous. This motion will go nowhere.

Friday, August 10, 2007

News and Notes

1. Poor Monkey (Sun-Sentinel).

2. Our chief would never do this (WSJ Blog).

3. Jury instructions in Padilla almost finalized (AP).

4. Cop sues in federal court (DBR).

5. Sy's funeral. (Rumpole)

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Water cooler talk

Forget about 756, everyone is talking about yesterday's 3rd DCA's opinion re Adorno Yoss.

From the concurrence by former AUSA (we had to have a SDFLA connection somewhere!) Angel Cortinas:

Plainly and simply, this was a scheme to defraud. It was a case of unchecked avarice coupled with a total absence of shame on the part of the original lawyers. The attorneys manipulated the legal system for their own pecuniary gain and acted against their clients’ interests by attempting to deprive them of monies to which they might otherwise be entitled. More unethical and reprehensible behavior by attorneys against their own clients is difficult to imagine.

Youch.

Here's the opinion.

Here's the coverage in the DBR, the Herald, and the WSJ blog.