Black Lives & Medicine program at the Court (virtually)

 To attend, all you need to do is send an email by February 19, 2021, to: FLSD_Program@flsd.uscourts.gov.

 

"Restoring the Historical Rule of Lenity as a Canon"

 Shon Hopwood has this new piece about the Rule of Lenity.  It's especially important with all of the white collar cases that charge people who are in a gray area.  From the abstract:

In criminal law, the venerated rule of lenity has been frequently, if not consistently, invoked as a canon of interpretation. Where criminal statutes are ambiguous, the rule of lenity generally posits that courts should interpret them narrowly, in favor of the defendant. But the rule is not always reliably used, and questions remain about its application. In this article, I will try to determine how the rule of lenity should apply and whether it should be given the status of a canon.

First, I argue that federal courts should apply the historical rule of lenity (also known as the rule of strict construction of penal statutes) that applied prior to the 1970s, when the Supreme Court significantly weakened the rule. The historical rule requires a judge to consult the text, linguistic canons, and the structure of the statute and then, if reasonable doubts remain, interpret the statute in the defendant’s favor. Conceived this way, the historical rule cuts off statutory purpose and legislative history from the analysis, and places a thumb on the scale in favor of interpreting statutory ambiguities narrowly in relation to the severity of the punishment that a statute imposes. As compared to the modern version of the rule of lenity, the historical rule of strict construction better advances democratic accountability, protects individual liberty, furthers the due process principle of fair warning, and aligns with the modified version of textualism practiced by much of the federal judiciary today.

Second, I argue that the historical rule of lenity should be deemed an interpretive canon and given stare decisis effect by all federal courts. If courts consistently applied historical lenity, it would require more clarity from Congress and less guessing from courts, and it would ameliorate some of the worst excesses of the federal criminal justice system, such as overcriminalization and overincarceration.

Pilot civil jury trial set for May in SDFLA

The judges voted yesterday to have a pilot civil jury trial in May.  I'm told it was a spirited debate and it passed 10-8.  If that goes well, other civil and criminal trials could resume as soon as the summer.  

For the pilot trial in May, there are a number of protocols and standards that will have to be met before it can go forward.  It will be interesting to see where we will be with the variants and vaccine roll-out at that time.  

I posted about the issue a few weeks ago here.

Judge Fay funeral arrangements

Funeral mass will be held at 11:00 a.m. on February 9, 2021 at St. John the Evangelist Catholic Community Church, 5655 Stadium Pkwy Viera, Florida 32940 and will also be live streaming at https://youtu.be/UvG1-mbN3GE. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Rollins College, St. Thomas University, UF Law's Peter T. Fay Jurist-in-Residence Program, Wounded Warriors, or the Shriners Hospitals for Children.

New guidance for federal prosecutors. Will it matter?

 The Acting AG issued new guidance for federal prosecutors "to ensure that prosecutors are able to exercise discretion in pursuing justice."  The January 29 memo explains that the Trump era policy of charging the most serious offense and seeking the highest sentence is rescinded.  And in its place, the old Obama-era policy on charging and sentencing will take its place.  That means that prosecutors will have the discretion to look at the particular case and person, and then decide what the appropriate charge and sentence should be. This is a significant change.  Let's see if our federal prosecutors will take the letter and spirit of the change to heart.