“First, your honor, I’m not smoking crack. I can promise you that.”

That was Apple lawyer William Lee in response to Judge Koh's comment that "unless you’re smoking crack you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called!”  Yikes.

The dispute arises from the judge's decision to give each side a certain amount of hours to present its case.  Of course, each side wants more now that it has run out.  

From Slashgear:


Today in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case Judge Lucy Koh’s patience wore thin as Apple presented a 75-page document highlighting 22 witnesses it would like to call in for rebuttal testimony, provided the court had the time. As those following the case closely know quite well, the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin. As quoted by The Verge as they sat in the courtroom listening in, Koh wondered aloud why Apple would offer the list “when unless you’re smoking crack you know these witnesses aren’t going to be called!”


Ouch. For the record, Apple lawyer William Lee told Judge Koh that “First, your honor, I’m not smoking crack. I can promise you that.” Crack or no, it seems that Apple will not get the opportunity to bring all of these rebuttal witnesses to the stand, even though Apple’s attorneys offered to shorten the length of the document.

11th Circuit kicks Mathurin case on other grounds

This was the case that Judge Cooke ruled a 300 year mandatory sentence for a juvenile was unconstitutional.  Both sides appealed, and the Eleventh Circuit vacated the conviction on speedy trial grounds, and did not mention the sentencing issue.

The issue presented:

This case requires us to decide the narrow question of whether the time
during which plea negotiations are conducted is automatically excludable from the
Speedy Trial Act’s thirty-day window for filing an information or indictment. For
the reasons that follow, we have concluded that the time during which plea
negotiations are conducted is not automatically excludable.

From the conclusion:

We conclude that the time during which plea negotiations were conducted
was not automatically excludable from Mr. Mathurin’s speedy-indictment clock.
That being the case, the government exceeded the maximum thirty-day delay for
bringing the indictment. Under the Act, this means that the charges in the
superseding indictment, as originally set forth in the juvenile information and later
cited in the government’s motion to transfer, must be dismissed.7 See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3162(a)(1). Mr. Mathurin’s convictions must be vacated. However, “we leave it
to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether dismissal should be
with or without prejudice.” Zedner, 547 U.S. at 509, 126 S. Ct. at 1990.

News & Notes

1.  Judge Turnoff's daughter is the news for doing good.  Wendy Atrokhov seems like a good egg!

2.  Apple rests.  The judge still isn't happy.  One quote: “I want to see papers, I don’t trust what any lawyer tells me in this courtroom.”  Yikes.

3.  DOJ finally agrees to free innocent prisoners.  Brad Heath of USA Today has the scoop:

The department confirmed Monday that it had instructed its lawyers to abandon legal objections that could have blocked — or at least delayed — the inmates from being set free. In a court filing , the department said it had "reconsidered its position," and that it would drop its legal arguments "in the interests of justice."

The shift follows a USA TODAY investigation in June that identified more than 60 people who were imprisoned for something an appeals court later determined was not a federal crime. The investigation found that the Justice Department had done almost nothing to identify those prisoners — many of whom did not know they were innocent — and had argued in court that the men were innocent but should remain imprisoned anyway.

Neither Justice Department lawyers nor defense attorneys would speculate Monday how many innocent prisoners eventually might be released. Some who were convicted of other crimes might receive shorter sentences; others might be tried for different offenses.

Chris Brook, the legal director of the ACLU of North Carolina, called the move "an encouraging first step," but said "much more has to be done for these wrongly incarcerated individuals." He said the department still had not offered to identify prisoners who were sent to prison for something that turned out not to be a federal crime.

4.  Jay Weaver covers "Queenpin":

The media have dubbed her the “Queen of the Pacific,” a rare woman who allegedly reached the top of the male-dominated Colombian-Mexican drug world with her feminine mystique.
She was featured in the famous drug ballad titled “The Queen of the Queens,” sung by a band called Los Tucanes de Tijuana. One line in the narcocorrido captured her essence: “The more beautiful the rose, the sharper the thorns.”
Her name: Sandra Avila Beltrán. The raven-haired 51-year-old — at least that’s what her arrest form says her age is — will appear in Miami federal court Tuesday for her arraignment and bond hearing. She was extradited last week from Mexico, where she had been arrested in 2007, on charges of conspiring to smuggle loads of cocaine into the United States more than a decade ago.
“She is very Cleopatra-ish, like the Queen of the Nile,” said Miami criminal defense attorney Lilly Ann Sanchez, who represented two other defendants in the same case. “She was able to maneuver her way in a man’s world and use the fact that she was a woman to her advantage in more ways than one.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/13/2950459/mexican-queenpin-faces-drug-charges.html#storylink=cpy

Michael Caruso officially named Federal Defender

Congrats my friend!

He takes over for Judge Kathleen Williams.

I couldn't think of anyone else who could fill Judge Williams' shoes.

"I have bent over backward ... I have extended every due process to Mr. Roy that the record reflects he denied to his own client."

That was Judge Turnoff in jailing Emmanuel Roy, the former lawyer who is alleged to have ignored numerous court orders.  SFL has covered this story along the way, but it's worth writing about here as well.  Some interesting tidbits from the Sun-Sentinel:

The judge found Roy had focused his efforts on wringing cash and other valuables out of Coulton's family.
Roy even flew to England and took a $23,000 wedding ring from the finger of Coulton's wife at a meeting, the judge found. He also took a Porsche, tens of thousands of dollars and a Coconut Creek townhouse, the judge found.
Turnoff gave Roy and Mayas 10 days to comply with his order last September but Roy never responded so the judge eventually issued a warrant for his arrest after he failed to show for a July 6 hearing.
On July 12, Roy wrote to Turnoff that he had "always shown great respect to the court."
"I trust that the court will not conclude that I have decided to stump [sic] my nose at it, for any party who does so does it as his own peril," Roy wrote.
Five days later, Roy was arrested in New York on the judge's warrant. He was refused a bond and transferred -- via Oklahoma -- to face the judge, arriving Wednesday at Miami's Federal Detention Center.
Finally facing Judge Turnoff in court Thursday, Roy didn't get into details about the Coulton case. He claimed he's now penniless though he told authorities he had a net worth of about $700,000 in 2009 when he was charged with wire fraud in a federal mortgage investigation in New York. He has pleaded not guilty and is going to trial on that case next month.
Though Turnoff was clearly astounded by Roy's actions, he said he is keeping an open mind and gave Roy and his lawyer time to prepare for an Aug. 16 hearing where Roy can explain himself before the judge makes a final ruling.
...
Turnoff ruled Roy can be released on a $250,000 bond if he can put up $5,000 cash and promises to return for the hearing next week.

If you are looking for a something a little more light-hearted, check out this Jerry Seinfeld short with Ricky Gervais.

Or, if you are a Supreme Court junkie, here's a case from the upcoming Term on whether a house boat is a boat or a house:

As yachts go, Fane Lozeman’s vessel was no Queen Mary. First of all, the two-story, 60-foot boat had no name, motor or way of being steered. She drew only 10 inches of water and had glass French doors on three sides, making the idea of an ocean passage nonsensical. Tied up at the dock in North Beach Village, Fla., she was the functional equivalent of a house down to the sewer line and electrical lines snaking onshore.
That didn’t stop town authorities from getting an order under marine law to seize the vessel and tow it to Miami, after Lozeman failed to heed local ordinances and pay his dockage fees. Now the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to decide the question of whether the term “vessel” applies to anything that floats, or should be reserved for things intended to move from place to place.