The defendant “should not be a casualty of the chaos in Mexico.”

That was Hector Flores in the New York Times today, speaking for his client -- a former federal ICE agent, Richard P. Cramer. From the Times:

According to the complaint, on a number of occasions Mr. Cramer used his position to search federal databases and a California state database to see if certain unidentified drug trafficking organization members were informants for American law enforcement.
The complaint says he passed that information along to his cartel handlers, charging $2,000 for one D.E.A. document, as well as information on how federal agents conduct drug investigations and recruit informants.
Mr. Cramer, the complaint said, at one point invested $40,000 in a 2007 plot to smuggle 660 pounds of cocaine to Spain from Panama, passing through United States seaports.
The load was seized, and that turn of events set off a dispute involving Mr. Cramer, a drug lord and lower-level traffickers that included a hunt for informants, according to the complaint.
The drug agency last August arrested an unidentified participant in the plot who, along with other confidential sources, provided information that culminated in Mr. Cramer’s arrest.

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court

So I snuck out a bit early from my meeting today and went over to the Supreme Court. I sat in the attorney room for the tail end of the Stevens case, which addressed whether the First Amendment trumped the statute prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty. From what I heard, the case will be 8-1 in favor of the criminal defendant Stevens, holding that Section 48 -- prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty -- is unconstitutional. The one Justice that seemed to say that Congress could pass such a statute was Alito.

Then I actually got into the courtroom and saw the oral argument in Johnson v. United States, a sentencing case from the Eleventh Circuit addressing whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.

It's amazing how close they let members of the Supreme Court bar sit to the Justices. It's like sitting in the front section of the movie theatre before the stadium seating starts. Very close. In this case Justices Scalia and Breyer were going at it. Scalia was clearly in favor of the criminal defendant and Breyer was clearly against. It will be a close case, probably 5-4... I would bet in favor of the defendant. Scalia used a hypo that made everyone laugh -- he asked whether if he told the government lawyer to shut up or he would flick her with his index finger, then would he be committing a violent felony. The government lawyer said yes... Any unwanted touching counted. Scalia didn't agree. Sotomayor was also an active questioner. Breyer kept asking about the "mine run" case, which sounded weird after the 4th or 5th time he used that term. He also took a jab at Scalia, saying if one were to read the legislative history of the statute, which some of his colleagues didn't do, it would be clear that Congress intended to cover this conduct. Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress could have been clearer and used the word battery if it wanted all battery cases covered.

UPDATE -- here's SCOTUSBlog's coverage of the Stevens' case.

PICTURES:

Supreme Court to hear dogfighting video case

Brian Maloney summarizes Stevens v. United States here. The issue is an interesting one: whether the First Amendment protects videos depicting animal cruelty. The Third Circuit found that the First Amendment did in fact protect such videos. From ScotusBlog:

The en banc Third Circuit overturned Stevens’s conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional on its face as a content-based prohibition on protected speech. The court first held that the speech regulated by § 48 is protected under the First Amendment. In its view, only one of the established categories of unprotected speech – child pornography – is even somewhat similar to the speech prohibited under § 48. The Supreme Court’s opinion in New York v. Ferber, holding that child pornography is not protected speech, set forth a number of factors to consider when determining whether to “create” a new category of unprotected speech. Applying these factors to the case at hand, the Third Circuit emphasized that although preventing cruelty to animals is “appealing . . . to our sensibilities,” it is not a compelling governmental interest in the context of free speech. Thus, it held, § 48 fails strict scrutiny because “it serves no compelling government interest, is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and does not provide the least restrictive means to achieve such an interest.”

I had a similar case involving cockfighting videos, detailed here but the case never got ruled on as we had to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. Shoot, this could have been my ticket to the Supreme Court...

First Monday in October

It's that time again, and I'm actually in DC for the day. Unfortunately, I'm not getting over to the Court for the first day of oral arguments this Term.

I'll post if I can get to a laptop later today; if not carry on in the comment section.

Miami is BACK

And it's not just the Hurricanes.

We've got all kinds of big fraud and corruption cases on the front page of the Herald this Sunday morning. There's Alan Mendelsohn's story, there's the advice given to Allen Stanford by Greenberg Traurig, and there's the investigation into prominent lobbyist Neil Sterling.

Ahhh yes, Miami is back.