Rick Diaz and Lou Guerra to Washington

At 10 a.m today, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in United States v. Williams (06-694), asking whether a federal ban on pandering material believed to be child pornography is unconstitutional. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the petitioner, and Richard J. Diaz -- yes, that Rick Diaz -- will argue for the respondent. Louis Guerra will be joining Rick at counsel table.

Initially Judge Middlebrooks denied Diaz & Guerra's motion to dismiss. The 11th Circuit reversed. And the High Court granted cert.

Go get em Rick and Lou.

Should Liberty City 7 jury hear from "radicalization" expert?

Yes, says Judge Lenard who is going to permit the government expert Raymond Tanter to testify as to how regular people become terrorists. From Vanessa Blum's article in the Sun-Sentinel:

The federal government's leading expert witness in its terrorism case against seven Miami men will take the stand this week to answer what may be the most pressing question facing law enforcement since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: How do ordinary individuals become terrorists?

In what will be the first testimony of its kind in a U.S. terrorism trial, Raymond Tanter is expected to tell jurors that most would-be terrorists start off as unremarkable individuals seeking a sense of belonging and purpose within an extremist group.Prosecutors want Tanter, a political science professor at Georgetown University, to tell jurors the seven defendants accused of plotting to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago fit that profile and were on a path likely to end in violence.

Tanter's testimony is based on a theory called the radicalization process. It is important to the government's case because the defendants — who have no Middle Eastern roots, mostly grew up in South Florida and practiced a blend of religions — may not fit jurors' notions about terrorists.Defense lawyers tried unsuccessfully to block Tanter from testifying, describing his theories as unscientific and too new to be considered reliable.

Joe Cool case to Judge Huck

The parties better get ready for trial!

Say hello to my little friend

You're gonna love this. Here's the AP coverage of yesterday's exchange between Albert Levin and star government witness Elie Assad:

The star prosecution witness in a terrorism conspiracy case against seven Miami men said he liked the gangster film "Scarface" so much he frequently used the main character's last name.

The witness, Elie Assad, acknowledged Wednesday under questioning from a defense lawyer that he was often known as Elie Assad Montana after arriving in the United States from the Middle East in the late 1990s. When asked why by defense attorney Albert Levin, Assad replied, "'Scarface.'"

"Like Tony Montana?" Levin asked.

"I liked maybe the movie, sir," Assad responded.

The 1983 film, directed by Brian De Palma and written by Oliver Stone, features Al Pacino as Tony Montana, a Cuban refugee who rises with spectacular violence to become lord of a Miami cocaine empire. The movie spawned many indelible lines, such as Tony's "Say hello to my little friend!" while brandishing an assault weapon.

So, who is this guy?

Working covertly for the FBI, Assad acted as an emissary from al-Qaida who was supposedly sent to help the group of seven Miami men, led by 33-year-old Narseal Batiste, realize their alleged goal of destroying the Sears Tower in Chicago and attacking five FBI offices around the country.

Assad filed a lawsuit in Broward County against a rental car company as a result of the trunk incident, which was ultimately settled, according to court records. The "Montana" references came up in a November 2006 deposition Assad gave in that case - a statement he refused Wednesday to acknowledge as truthful because he did not sign it.
"It's possible not everything is accurate," Assad said.

Can you imagine Albert Levin's glee when he found out that government witness thought he was Scarface...

Broward state court

JAABlog, Rumpole, the Sun-Sentinel and others are covering a Broward state court story where a high-school football player was a victim of (corrected, the original post said defendant; that's what you get for relying on Rumpole) sexual battery. Judge Levenson (a former AUSA* and a good guy) asked what position the victim played. The prosecutor responded, Linebacker. The public defender imprudently responded, Tight-end. The judge then insensitively joked "Wide Receiver?"

To his credit, the prosecutor said the comments were inappropriate. And to the judge's credit, he immediately (and repeatedly) apologized.**

This is the great benefit of blogs -- and the big trouble with them. Stupid comments like this have been going on for a very long time. They obviously aren't right, but blogs make the reaction angrier and more volatile than probably necessary.

I agree with Rumpole that Levenson should be forgiven. (I took out my comment about the PD because it wasn't his client that he was talking about. Obviously still inappropriate, but not in the same way.)

*I have to justify the post on the "federal blog" or Rumpole gets all upset.
**We previously have commented on Judge Levenson's good acts as judge here.