Mark Lapointe front runner for U.S. Attorney in SDFLA

 Jay Weaver covers the story here:

With sweeping turnover in the U.S. justice system under way in the new Biden administration, a Black lawyer has emerged as the leading candidate for the high-profile job of U.S. Attorney in Miami.

If President Joe Biden nominates Markenzy Lapointe, 53, for the influential post, it would be an historic choice in one of the most dynamic federal prosecutor’s offices in the nation.

Not only would his nomination be a first in the Southern District of Florida, but it would also signal Biden’s nod to the Black vote that helped him defeat Donald Trump in November’s presidential election. Lapointe is the only candidate to be interviewed by the White House counsel so far for the U.S. Attorney’s job, reflecting the strength of his prospects.

This is so great.

Prof. Ron Sullivan for Aaron Hernandez

Welcome to Episode 3 of For the Defense, Season 2. 

This week, we have Harvard Law Professor Ron Sullivan (pictured below, left) to discuss the Aaron Hernandez trial (available on Apple and all other platforms). Sullivan tried the case with Jose Baez (last week's guest, who discussed the Casey Anthony case -- available on Apple here and other platforms here).  Hernandez already had been convicted of murder, and this was his second murder trial where no one gave him a shot.  Enter Sullivan and Baez...

Here's a short clip (via Twitter) of Prof. Sullivan discussing the prosecutor's attempt to use Hernandez's tattoos in closing argument:

Two TDs for Gronk in the Super Bowl. Brady’s former TE, Aaron Hernandez, had two murder trials. In today’s episode of #ForTheDefense, I speak to Prof. Ron Sullivan about the 2nd trial. In this clip, he discusses Aaron’s tattoos and their use at trial. https://t.co/HaF2A4rnxY pic.twitter.com/xcDY4kj5dy

— David Oscar Markus (@domarkus) February 8, 2021

In other news, we are going to have a new U.S. Attorney very soon.  According to this CNN article, President Biden will be asking all Trump hold-overs to resign, including in the SDFLA. According to the article, there are a few exceptions -- including Michael Sherwin in D.C. who is doing a great job handling the insurrection cases.  

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.