Ethics

Here's a little ethics question for my SDFLA readers on Monday morning:

Should the attorney-client privilege survive a client's death when revealing that client's statements (that he was the murderer and not the guy on death row) would save a man from death row or from life imprisonment (or any imprisonment)?

Those are the questions Adam Liptak examines in this NY Times article from a real life example. It's pretty dramatic that the judge is threatening the lawyer for revealing his dead client's statements:

STAPLES HUGHES, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.

“If you testify,” Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner’s request for a new trial, “I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?”
But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, “it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans.”
Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.


This is a classic law school hypo, and it's interesting to see how it is playing out in the real world. Monroe Freedman, the ethics guru, is quoted a bunch in the article. He would draw the line at saving someone from death row, but not life imprisonment:

Most experts in legal ethics agree that lawyers should be allowed to violate a living client’s confidences to save an innocent man from execution, but not to free someone serving a prison term, however long.
“I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation,” said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra. “That situation is sufficiently rare that is doesn’t present a systemic threat. If that is extended to incarceration in general, it would end the sense of security clients have in speaking candidly with their lawyers.”
The questions get more complicated when the client has died.

So, SDFLA readers, what do you think?

And have a happy Cinco de Mayo!

Joe Cool defendant passes polygraph

Assistant Public Defenders Anthony Natale and Brian Stekloff, along with co-counsel Bill Matthewman, who represent Joe Cool defendant Guillermo Zarabozo, filed a motion yesterday to admit polygraph evidence. Here's the intro:

Mr. Zarabozo has passed scientifically valid polygraph examinations conducted by two separate, leading experts in the field of polygraph examination. Both experts have determined that Mr. Zarabozo truthfully answered questions that demonstrate he did not: (1) commit premeditated murder, i.e., shoot anyone; (2) conspire to commit murder; or (3) commit felony murder. The Eleventh Circuit has held that polygraph evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a witness at trial–here, Mr. Zarabozo. See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1536-37 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, for the reasons discussed in detail below, the science of polygraph examination has evolved to a point where it clearly satisfies the requirements of Daubert. As Justice Potter Stewart stated, “Any rule that impedes the discovery of truth in a court of law impedes as well the doing of justice.” Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 81 (1958) (Stewart, J., concurring). Any effort to deprive a jury from hearing the results of Mr. Zarabozo’s polygraph examinations would run contrary to Justice Stewart’s admonition and would impede justice in this case.

Apparently Zarabozo passed two different polygraph examinations. Here are the questions from the first polygraph:

“1. While on the Joe Cool, did you shoot anyone? Answer – No.
2. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about shooting anyone on board the Joe Cool? Answer – No.
3. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about stealing the Joe Cool? Answer – No.”

And from the second:

“Q1: Regarding what you knew before that charter boat the ‘Joe Cool’ crew was killed and
the boat hijacked last September 22, 2007: Do you intend to answer truthfully each
question about that” A1: Yes.
Q2: Other than what you now know: At any time before the crew members of the Joe
Cool were shot: For any reason did you really know that was going to happen? A2:
No.
Q3: When you said that before the shooting occurred on that boat the Joe Cool; that the
only reason you were on board, was to travel to Bimini and participate in pre-planned
security job with Kirby Archer, did you lie about that? A3: No.
Q4: When you said that you expected to participate in a future CIA assignment with
Kirby Archer either in Cuba or Venezuela after the Bimini security job was done: Did
you lie about that? A4: No.
Q5: When you said that you brought your handgun for use on the Bimini security job and
that it was never intended to be used by you or Kirby Archer to hijack that boat the
Joe Cool: Did you lie about that? A5: No.”

Looks like it was a busy day...

...in mag court.

Judge Gold to speak May 14

This should be a great talk. May 14th at the Banker's Club at noon. Cost is $35. RSVP to Lourdes Fernandez at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

Rumpole & Ashley Dupre

Rumpole has a funny post about the federal buildings here. From what I hear, there are trials scheduled in the new building in May... I'll believe it when I see it.

The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:

The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.

Not so good for her lawsuit...

UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.

"Prosecutors say jailhouse snitches won't be called to testify in Joe Cool case"

That's the headline from Vanessa Blum's article discussing the government's filing today. It makes sense not to call these guys, who would just muddy the case up for the government. Smart move.

From Blum's article:

Two jailhouse snitches who say they heard incriminating statements from a suspect in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea case won't be called to testify at trial, federal prosecutors stated in a motion filed Monday evening.Their announcement came after attorneys for Guillermo Zarabozo sought to have the so-called confession thrown out, claiming it violated Zarabozo's constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during questioning.U.S. District Judge Paul Huck set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the government's filing. Huck canceled a hearing where the inmates, Antwan Hall and Daniel Noel, were expected to testify about the circumstances of their conversations with Zarabozo in Miami's Federal Detention Center.Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark. are charged with murdering Joe Cool captain Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley Branam, 30; his half brother, Scott Gamble, 35; and first-mate Samuel Kairy, 27 on Sept. 22.

***

But the confession posed problems for prosecutors. First, it could not be used against Archer, meaning the government would be forced to try the two defendants separately if it came in as evidence. Secondly, the inmates would have obvious credibility problems as witnesses, because they are convicted felons seeking sentence reductions.Most urgently, Zarabozo's lawyers wanted Huck to rule on claims the confession violated Zarabozo's right to counsel. In a motion filed last week, defense lawyers said prosecutors knew Hall and Noel were government snitches and intentionally placed the men next to Zarabozo to illicit a confession.Federal judges have ruled that informants who have pre-existing agreements to gather information for prosecutors may be considered government agents. That would make a jailhouse interrogation illegal unless the suspect's lawyer was present.Prosecutors disputed that was the case, saying the government had "no agreement or prearrangement" with the men to seek a confession from Zarabozo.Still, prosecutors agreed not to use the confession unless Zarabozo took the stand at trial and told a different story.The men's trial is currently set for early June but could be pushed back if the government opts to seek the death penalty.

Spitzer call girl sues Girls Gone Wild owner...

...here in the Southern District of Florida. Here's the complaint (Ashley Dupre v. Joseph Francis, et al), filed by attorney Richard Wolfe.

Here's some coverage by the Herald:

Five years after Girls Gone Wild filmed the unknown teen cavorting topless in South Beach, the now-notorious Ashley Alexandra Dupré is demanding a cut of the money from the video sales.
Dupré filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court in Miami, claiming Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis and his company owe her more than $10 million.
Now 22 (turning 23 Wednesday), Dupré was a few weeks shy of her 18th birthday when she ran into Francis' film crew outside Miami Beach's Chesterfield Hotel in March 2003. They got her drunk and filmed her flashing her breasts in hotel rooms, according to the suit.
Francis, 35, who arrived in Miami on Monday to promote his new Girls Gone Wild magazine, told The Miami Herald he has ''never sold one'' video of Dupré and referred questions to his attorneys.
Francis repackaged the footage last month after Dupré emerged as a central figure in the high-priced prostitution scandal that ensnared New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, leading to his resignation. Investigators say Spitzer paid big bucks for sexual encounters with Dupré, who worked as an escort named ``Kristen.''

Joe Cool defendant wants to keep supposed statement out

Looks like the Joe Cool case is starting to heat up again...

At a status today, Judge Huck set a hearing on Guillermo Zarabozo's motion to exclude his supposed statement to a jailhouse snitch for next Wed. Here is the intro to Jay Weaver's article:

A Hialeah man charged with another man in the slayings last year of four Miami Beach charter boat crew members is trying to have his alleged ''confession'' to a jailhouse snitch tossed out before trial this summer.
Guillermo Zarabozo has asked a federal judge to suppress testimony by the government's jail ''informant,'' who claims Zarabozo confessed in custody that his co-defendant fatally shot the victims aboard the Joe Cool at sea last fall.
Zarabozo allegedly told the informant in the Federal Detention Center that Kirby Archer, a fugitive from Arkansas, used Zarabozo's gun to shoot the four after Archer argued with the boat captain about taking the vessel to Cuba.
A hearing on Zarabozo's new motion, filed by attorney William Matthewman, is set for Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Paul Huck.
The lawyer claims Zarabozo's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment would be violated if the informant -- Antwan Hall, a felon serving 30 months for possession of a firearm -- is allowed to testify for the prosecution at trial on June 23.
''All that matters is whether the government informant deliberately used his position to secure incriminating information from . . . [Zarabozo] when counsel was not present,'' according to the motion.
Matthewman said Hall's cellmate, Daniel Noel, also convicted on firearm charges and serving 24 months, might be used as a witness to corroborate Hall's testimony.

How not to do an oral argument

Phipps: . . . so that’s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don’t have anything other than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. ... She continues to earn a living, and she’s generally unavailable if you call her because she, she’s sort of a traveling doctor.

Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.

Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.

Judge: What do you do about Morgan?

Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.

Judge: You don’t know Morgan?

Phipps: Nope.

Judge: You haven’t read it?

Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh, Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night. I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t think it applies.

Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?

Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.

Judge: At Tulane, is it?

Phipps: Loyola.

Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.

Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.

Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.

The Fifth Circuit wasn't too happy. It had this to say in a per curium opinion.

[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]
Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.

OUCH!

Liberty City to be tried a third time

Trial to be set for the Fall.

Here are the minutes from today's hearing:

Government announced they will proceed with a third trial. Deft. Herrera’s motion for bond is granted; $50k ps co-signed by father; deft Abraham’s moton for bond is denied; Prebish’s m/withdraw granted, the Court to appoint counel w/in 2/3 days, further status set for 4/30/08 @8:30am. Trial expected to start sometime in the fall.

UPDATE -- from Vanessa Blum's article:

"We've worked very hard this past week reviewing everything in this case and considering it very, very seriously," said prosecutor Richard Gregorie. "The United States has decided it's necessary to proceed, your honor, one more time."U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard set a hearing for next week to decide on a new trial date. She said she would likely schedule the trial for late 2008.Acknowledging that two juries have been unable to resolve the case, Gregorie said the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree to the release of four defendants on bond.
Prosecutors oppose bond for the group's purported ringleader Narseal Batiste, 34, and Patrick Abraham, 28, who is an illegal U.S. resident.

Mold findings....

Some more coverage of the Dyer mold problem here and here and here.

From the AP:

Miami's historic downtown federal courthouse suffers from extensive contamination of dangerous types of mold and should have some sections closed for cleaning, according to a new environmental study released Tuesday.

But the analysis by a private firm - hired by the attorney for the family of a judge who died in 2006 of a lung ailment - stops short of recommending that the 75-year-old building be shuttered completely.

The now-sealed courtroom formerly used by the U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore Klein before his death contained "very heavy growth" of hazardous mold and there are concerns that spores have spread throughout the building through air conditioning systems, said attorney Alan Goldfarb.

Trial stats

The commenters were correct that I posted the wrong link concerning the number of trials in this District. Thanks to a helpful reader, here is the correct link for the total trials in this District and the rest of the country. The conclusion in the prior post -- that we try more cases in this District than any other -- is still correct.

Weekend reading

1. Ben Kuehne. The feds decided to drop the obstruction count, but added a wire fraud count:

Federal prosecutors have added and subtracted charges in the money-laundering indictment brought against prominent Miami attorney Ben Kuehne and two others.
In a superseding indictment filed Friday, the Justice Department added a wire-fraud conspiracy count but dropped an obstruction of justice charge.

2. Trials. in 2007, the SDFLA had 155 trials, more than any other district, followed by SDNY (108), MDFL (108), SDTX(106) and WDTX(105). In fact, we had more trials than the entire 1st Circuit, and almost as many as the 3rd and 10th Circuits.

3. Libery City 7. Vanessa Blum examines why the government is having so much trouble in this case -- perhaps it was because they arrested too early:

The failure of federal prosecutors to convict any members of an alleged South Florida terror cell after two trials highlights the obstacles in a legal strategy of arresting terror suspects before they strike.That approach, known as preemption, has been the Justice Department's mandate since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, drove home the potentially lethal consequences of not acting soon enough to stop terrorism.But moving too quickly may have doomed the so-called Liberty City 7 case by leaving prosecutors without sufficient evidence to back up their sensational allegations that the men wanted to launch a ground war against the U.S. government.Violent rhetoric caught on tape from the group's leader and a grainy video of the defendants swearing an oath of allegiance to al-Qaida have not been enough to convince jurors the men were conspiring to join forces with the terror group and not, as defense lawyers argued, simply playing along in a scheme for money.

4. There is a white collar seminar in the Middle District coming up with some impressive speakers.

Jose Padilla to the Supermax

Jose Padilla was transferred today to Florence, Colorado -- commonly known as the Supermax -- to serve his 17 year sentence.  

Judge Martinez speaks at the Federal Bar Association today

As expected, he was entertaining and the turnout to see him speak was great.

Apparently, the judges have been delayed moving into the new building because GSA forgot to order them the audio-visual equipment. This is not even funny anymore!

The buzz at the luncheon, of course, was whether the feds would retry the Liberty City group.

Liberty City mistrial

The Liberty City jury hung for a second time today. Judge Lenard will have a hearing next Wednesday to find out if the government will proceed a third time and if so, when that trial will be rescheduled. Lots of coverage from all the regulars.

I will re-post my questions from an earlier entry:

Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?

Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....

What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.

The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...

I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.

My prediction is that despite all of the above, the case will be tried a third time.

Finally, I feel for Judge Lenard. Can you imagine having to sit through the same lengthy trial 3 times. Shoot me now!

Guam drops charges against Greenberg Traurig...

... in exchange for a refund of $324,000.

Allen charged

The Liberty City jury sent another note that they were hung. Judge Lenard gave the dynamite charge, called the "Allen" charge. Here is the coverage of the Allen charge from the first trial.

Here is the text of the pattern Allen charge:

I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.
This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.
Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.
If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you.

Come see Judge Martinez speak Wednesday

This Wednesday from noon to 1:30 at the Banker's Club, you should come see Judge Martinez speak -- it will be entertaining for sure. Cost is $35; RSVP to Lourdes Fernandez at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

Liberty City thoughts

Let's assume this trial ends in a mistrial, like the trial before it did.

Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?

Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....

What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.

The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...

I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.

My prediction is that despite all of the above, if there is a hung jury, the case will be tried a third time.

Liberty City jury deadlocked?

The jury sent a note saying they were deadlocked today. Judge Lenard ordered them to keep trying...

Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero resigns

A couple of years back we were saying that he might be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today, he stepped down citing family reasons. Here's the article.

Interesting state case

Rumpole has been covering an interesting state case about how far our drug laws really reach. In closing argument, the defense lawyer argued (via Miami Herald):

''The only thing that is clear in this case is that the government is completely abusing its power in applying the law to my client,'' Morris told the jury, to the objection of the prosecution. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Hogan Scola told the jury to disregard the comment.

I love trials and evidence questions -- so I put this to you, my loyal blog readers: is this argument objectionable? Should the objection have been sustained? By my asking the question, I'm sure you know my opinion...

BTW, still no news on Liberty City. This jury has been out longer than LB7. Would the govt try it a third time?

Liberty City jury still deliberating

That says it all.

Moving day?

Thanks to one of my favorite tipsters for the picture.

Judge Martinez to speak Wednesday, April 16th -- CORRECTION

In what promises to be a very entertaining lunch, Judge Martinez is speaking Wednesday APRIL 16th, at the Banker’s Club at noon. Lunch is $35. RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

CORRECTED POST -- I originally put this Wed -- that is incorrect. It is Wed the 16th. Thanks.

News & Notes

1. Since Rumpole is shut down, I have invited him to blog over here.

2. The Justice Dept is investigating Dade County jails. I'm very happy about this. Broward should be next. The conditions are just appalling.

3. I've been slow to cover this story. But there is a lawsuit in our District re the Beatles. From Jay Weaver's article:

A London company representing The Beatles has won the first legal round to stop a Miami Lakes business from releasing rare live recordings of the group at a German club in 1962.
Apple Corps Limited and Fuego Entertainment struck an agreement approved by a Miami federal judge on Friday that requires Fuego to halt plans to release eight song recordings featuring Ringo Starr on drums as a Beatle for the first time.
The injunction also requires Fuego to remove any information about the planned release from its website, which has featured a sales pitch to customers to buy the CD. And it requires Fuego to cease any use of the trademark, The Beatles, for commercial purposes.
The temporary injunction remains in effect until a lawsuit is resolved.

4. Just when you think it can't get any worse for Broward judges...

New courthouse is opening

Sort of.

Read Julie Kay's article here:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1207133079914

Other than the flooding, air conditioning, and electrical failures, it should be great.

--David Oscar Markus
www.markuslaw.com
305-379-6667

"Is it against the law to swear an oath to al-Qaida, agreeing to abide by the directives of al-Qaida?"

That was the fascinating question that the Liberty City 6 jury asked Judge Lenard today.

Curt Anderson from the AP has more here.

Unsurprisingly, the government said that the Court should answer the question Yes, while the defense said No.

According to Anderson: "U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard answered with her own note telling jurors to carefully read her instructions in the case, particularly those describing material support to a foreign terrorist organization." *** "This is a determination for them to make," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "They may see it as providing material support or they may not."

This is not an easy one -- In a pure vacuum, it's obviously not a crime to swear an oath to al-Qaida. The question is whether it's a crime in this case -- did the defendants have the requisite intent to offer material support for a terrorist organization? In that sense, the oath can be viewed as evidence.... So I think Judge Lenard's answer was the appropriate one, although probably not altogether satisfying to either party or to the jurors.

April Fool's...

Rumpole is playing April Fool's over at his blog.

Funny?

UPDATE -- Rumpole claims it was real.

No Liberty City verdict yet

Uh-oh... Any bets on when (if) we'll get a verdict?

In the meantime, check out this WSJ Blog story about a South Florida lawyer in the hot seat because of a "joke" he made with a prosecutor:

Consider this scenario: In 1999, Florida lawyer David Lamos was representing J.B. “Pig” Parker, who faced capital charges for his alleged role in the 1982 murder of store clerk Frances Slater (no relation to the Law Blog). Lamos faxed a motion to the prosecutor in the case, Lawrence Mirman, entitled “Reply to Reubuttal to Defendant’s Objection to State’s Motion to Quash.” The letter, which starts with Parker’s name and includes the words “dig dis” in the first sentence, goes on to cite case law in broken English and includes a passage about another case. “His posishun wuz rejected by de Flo’ida Supreme Court. Man!” the letter said. “He awaits ‘esecushun. De state be dig itably distressed cuz de kicker be on da oda’ foot. Man!”
The two-page motion was written in what experts later referred to as ebonics, and, according to testimony Lamos gave earlier this month, was intended as a “jest.” On the cover letter to the fax Lamos wrote, “As you can see, my writing improves with revision.” Lamos later asked Mirman, “Ask Bruce if I can have a job?” referring to Bruce Colton, a Florida state attorney.
As reported in this story from the Palm Beach Post, JoAnn Barone, the public defender now representing Parker at the post-conviction stage, is using the “joke” motion to argue that Lamos wasn’t acting in Parker’s best interest when a judge sentenced Parker to death for the second time. Barone tried to get Lamos to read the letter aloud in the courtroom, above the objections of the prosecutor, but the judge instead read the letter to himself and asked Barone to move on in her questioning.
The Law Blog contacted Lamos to get his side of the story. “I have no idea what [the prosecutors] thought it meant,” said Lamos. “What they were alluding to was a legal motion that, as a joke, was put through a piece of Web-based software that changed the vernacular. But if you look below the surface, the content of the fax was favorable to Parker. I guess what they were trying to make of that was that it amounted to some kind of misconduct in the case. But it had no relevance. It was never made a part of the record, and was never put into evidence. I have no idea where they were going with that. If you look at the content of it, it is ridiculously funny.”

Seems to me that this is ridiculously NOT funny.

Scooped...

So we scooped the Ben Kuehne story yesterday, reporting that new prosecutors were considering dropping some counts in the indictment. A bunch of others (WSJ, DBR, NLJ) picked up on the story with no hat tip to us! How dare they! At least the Review quoted me...

Again, thanks to my tipster for the info...

Chief Judge Moreno allows cell phones for jurors

Big kudos to the Chief!

From Julie Kay's National Law Journal article:

Jurors and witnesses in South Florida federal trials will no longer have to bury their cellphones in the ground before entering the courthouse. U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, chief judge for the Southern District of Florida, issued an order last week expanding the use of cellphones in the courthouse to prospective jurors, seated jurors and witnesses. The cellphones may have integrated cameras, he stated.

The issue of cellphones in federal court has been somewhat controversial in South Florida. Previous chief judges refused to even allow lawyers to carry cellphones into the courtroom, both for security concerns and to prevent photographs from being taken. Cameras are not allowed in federal courts nationwide, however a movement is now afoot to change that rule.

Since 2006, lawyers, judges, courthouse employees and federal agents have been allowed to bring cellphones into federal courthouses throughout South Florida, including in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. But jurors, reporters and others have complained about the rule. Sometimes unaware of it, visitors to the courthouses have been forced to bury their cellphones in the ground outside the courthouses and retrieve them when leaving.

In his order, Moreno noted that judges may need to contact jurors during recesses and attorneys may need to contact witnesses on short notice.

Because U.S. marshals will inspect all cellphones, security is not a concern, he stated.

"In today's modern world, security concerns are paramount," stated the order. "Yet these security concerns are satisfied by airlines, the White House, and the majority of courthouses in the United States where cellular telephones are permitted. Expanding the list to include these individuals will not diminish the security provided to the occupants of the courthouse, while at the same time enhance the availability of jurors and witnesses to participate in our court proceedings." Moreno did not extend the privilege to the use of laptops.

Dismissal of some counts in the Ben Kuehne case?

Thanks to a tipster, check out this Government motion for extension of time to respond to the defense motions:


GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE COUNT AND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
The United States, by and through the undersigned attorneys,
respectfully requests that this Court grant an enlargement of
time for the Government to respond to the Motion of Defendant
Kuehne to Dismiss Count Six of the indictment and for a Bill of
Particulars. Defendants Florez-Velez and Saldarriaga have both
moved to join in the motion to dismiss. The reasons for this
request are set forth herein.
The Government’s responses to the above pleadings are due to
be filed on March 24, 2008. The undersigned prosecutor has
recently become lead counsel in this matter and has undertaken a
review of the current charges in the case. As part of that review
process, there have been discussions at the Department of Justice
concerning whether there should be a voluntary dismissal of these
counts. In that event, the current defense motions would become
moot. Unfortunately, the Department has not been able to reach a
conclusion as to this matter and the undersigned has been
instructed to seek a brief continuance - in the nature of three
weeks - so that the matter can be subject to further discussion.
In accordance with Local Rule 88.9, the undersigned has
personally spoken with Joaquin Mendez, Esquire, counsel for
defendant Saldarriaga, who indicated no objection to the
requested continuance. In addition, John Nields, Esquire,
counsel for defendant Kuehne, has indicated that he has no
objection to the requested continuance. The undersigned left a
voice message for Henry P. Bell, Esquire, counsel for defendant
Gloria Florez Velez, informing him of the request.
A draft order is attached hereto for the Court’s
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH BLANCO, CHIEF
NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS
DRUG SECTION
RICHARD WEBER, CHIEF
ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY
LAUNDERING SECTION
/s/ Robert Feitel
By:
ROBERT FEITEL
JOHN W. SELLERS
THOMAS J. PINDER
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-3586

So, the Government has a new lead lawyer and is now reviewing some of the counts to see if they should be dismissed. Thoughts?

Trials...

The Liberty City 7 (six) case is winding down. Closing arguments started today. Coverage from the usual suspects here, here and here.

Can you imagine if this case hangs again (as the first set of jurors suggested after they couldn't reach a verdict). Would the government try it again? Should they?

As for Ben Kuehne's trial, it's set for Jan 2009.

"This prosecution boldly goes where none has gone before."

That's Milton Hirsch (I'm a sucker for Star Trek references) on Ben Kuehne's indictment, which is covered today in the DBR. The article focuses on the defense motions filed in the case.

The AP also had a story this weekend on the case.

Interestingly, Kuehne's lawyers have decided not to comment on the case at all. I guess they can do that because the criminal defense bar has (rightly) rallied behind Ben and comments on his behalf. Edward Bennett Williams has a policy at Williams & Connolly that no one was to comment to the press -- he could have that policy because he was best friends with the owner and editor of the Washington Post and gave lots of background info to the papers. I don't think W&C has that policy anymore.

Thw WSJ Blog covers defense lawyers talking to the press in the Scruggs case here. It's an interesting read.

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles

Or boats... Here's how Chief Judge Kozinski starts out an opinion in NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. v. C’EST MOI, INC.:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider the doctrine that’s on everyone’s lips: uberrimae fidei.

I had no idea either. According to Black's law, the Latin phrase means: The most abundant good faith; absolute and perfect candor or openness and honesty. It's a common phrase for you maritime lawyers.

As for planes, here's John Pacenti's article about seizures related to aircraft.

I know, I know -- this isn't the most gripping post I've ever done. But help me readers -- are there any great trials out there to blog about?

In the meantime, you can check out the other local blogs for fun posts about our state legislature at work allowing exemptions for plumbers re the low underwear law (via Rumpole) or fighting over fees (via South Florida Lawyers). And for my AUSA friends, here's a piece about shackling PDs (don't get too excited).

"RAZOR MANIAC JUMPS FED PROSECUTOR IN COURT"

Luckily it wasn't in this District. It happened in the Eastern District of New York.

Above the Law has more details including the transcript of the proceeding and the actions of the court reporter, who jumped on the defendant.

When I was a PD, a colleague (who was a former cop) had a client rush the judge. The PD jumped on his back and pinned his arms behind his back as the Marshals watched. It was a pretty funny sight...

My Apologies

Sorry for being gone the last couple days.

I will get back to blogging soon.

In the meantime -- it's March Madness. If you want to win a Supreme Court bobblehead, fill out your brackets here. Quickly!

Or catch up on all the recent cert grants in the Supreme Court (and the Heller arguments).

Of note to many of you -- the Miami Zuckerman Spaeder office has closed as everyone has bolted. Mike Pasano, Steve Bronis, Paul Calli, Tom Meeks, Walter Tache, and Marissel Descalzo are headed to Carlton Fields. Not sure where the other Miami Zuckerman lawyers are headed.

Greenberg Traurig indicted...

...in Guam (via ABA Journal).

It relates to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Dersh on Spitzer

Here is Professor Alan Dershowitz's take on the Eliot Spitzer case. I post it because it is very different than the way most of us feel about Mr. Spitzer. Here's a snippet:

The federal criminal investigation that has led to Eliot Spitzer's resignation as governor of New York illustrates the great dangers all Americans face from vague and open-ended sex and money-transaction statutes.
Federal law, if read broadly, criminalizes virtually all sexual encounters for which something of value has been given. Federal money-laundering statutes criminalize many entirely legitimate and conventional banking transactions. Congress enacted these laws to give federal prosecutors wide discretion in deciding which "bad guys" to go after.
Generally, wise and intelligent prosecutors use their discretion properly -- to target organized crime, terrorism, financial predation, exploitation of children and the like. But the very existence of these selectively enforced statutes poses grave dangers of abuse. They lie around like loaded guns waiting to be used against the enemies of politically motivated investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

He concludes:

Lavrenti Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's KGB, once quipped to his boss, "show me the man and I will find the crime." The Soviet Union was notorious for having accordion-like criminal laws that could be adjusted to fit almost any dissident target. The U.S. is a far cry from the Soviet Union, but our laws are dangerously overbroad.

Both Democrats and Republicans have targeted political adversaries over the years. The weapons of choice are almost always elastic criminal laws. And few laws are more elastic, and susceptible to abuse, than federal laws on money laundering and sex crimes. For the sake of all Americans, these laws should be narrowed and limited to predatory crimes with real victims.


Thoughts?

Judge Marcia Cooke speaks at the Federal Bar luncheon

While everyone else is wasting the day looking at "Kristen" pictures, we here at the SDFLA blog have pictures from yesterday's federal bar luncheon. Judge Cooke gave a very entertaining speech and demonstrated why she is so well liked by just about everyone who appears before her.

Reminder -- Judge Marcia Cooke to speak tomorrow at lunch

At the Banker's Club at noon.

Cost is $35.

There are a few seats left. You can pay at the door if you RSVP to Lourdes at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov

See you there!

The mold problem couldn't be any worse, right?

Wrong.

There is mold throughout the James Lawrence King building. From John Pacenti's DBR article:

Another federal courthouse is riddled with mold, according to a private study last fall commissioned by the U.S attorney’s office. The study found mold spores in the air throughout the James Lawrence King building in downtown Miami. U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta said Monday he asked for the study after mold problems at the Dyer Courthouse across the street became public last year following the unusual death in 2006 of a federal judge from a mysterious pulmonary illness. Acosta said the study’s report found “areas of concern” spread throughout the building. He said it was not unusual for one floor to be affected on one side more than the other. He also confirmed a small number of employees have complained about respiratory illness. Sources say some workers have chronic bronchitis.

For our out of town readers, don't be surprised by this -- we have mold in just about every building in Miami. So, what should be done?

Acosta said the study — which he did not release — recommended an upgrade of the building’s air conditioning and humidity control system followed by the cleaning of the air handling units and replacing insulation in air ducts. “I became concerned with the air quality in this building and thought it appropriate and necessary to protect our employees with our own assessment,” Acosta said. “This is a quality of life issue and it needs to get done.” Acosta said air purifiers — purchased out of the U.S. attorney’s office budget — have been located in the most problematic areas. Acosta referred questions about cost of the project to the General Services Administration, which acts the government’s landlord by renting out space in federal buildings.

The bright spot to all of this -- the new building is supposed to open soon:

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Federico Moreno said a certificate of occupancy has been issued and technical services should move into the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr. courthouse this month.

Client 9 and the Mann Act

The Mann Act is used quite frequently in this district to prosecute pimps and others who "persuade, induce, entice or coerce" women to cross state lines to engage in prostitution. 18 USC 2422 provides

Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

This seems like an easy prosecution for the feds if they choose to prosecute Eliot Spitzer, if the allegations are true. He certainly induced the prostitute to travel from New York to DC to engage in prostitution.

Now, should the feds pursue a simple prostitution case just because the prostitute traveled from state to state? There is nothing to suggest that the prostitute was coerced or was forced into this business (in fact, she was making more per hour than just about every lawyer in town). The original Mann Act of 1910 was really meant to outlaw forced prostitution (and was known as the "White Slave Traffic Act.") Although recent cases have greatly expanded the scope of the Act and the prosecution would be permissible, do you think such a prosecution is appropriate?

Trivia -- The most famous person prosecuted under the Mann Act is probably Charlie Chaplin.

TalkLeft has a bunch of good posts, including one exlplaining how the investigation started.

Pending motions list

In this morning's DBR, John Pacenti dimes out the district judges who have the most pending motions. Many judges check these stats out every month and want to make sure they have the lowest number of cases and motions.

When I clerked, Judge Davis would look at the list, but wouldn't really comment on it or seem to care too much about it. He always told us to work hard and not worry about the stats. (I guess his position might have been different if we were at the bottom of the list and not in the middle of the pack.)

Unless there is some glaring problem with a case or a motion that has hung around longer than it should, I think these lists are pretty silly. It's more important to get it right than to do it quickly.

What say you, SDFLA readers? (And pay no attention to Mr. Grumpy in the comments).

Chief Justice on cameras in the Supreme Court

"It's not our job to educate the public. Our job is to decide vitally important cases under the Constitution."

That's what he told a group of high school students in response to a question about why there were no cameras in the High Court.

Is it me or isn't that a very self-important, arrogant and obnoxious answer? I like the Chief Justice, but I disagree with him strongly on this point. How does educating the public at all take away from deciding important cases?

"If the state court is not sensible enough to dismiss this piece of shit, it will end up in federal court."

That was Fred Haddad about the Florida Bar complaint against attorney Sean Conway for his comments on a blog about Judge Cheryl Aleman.

Liberty City 7 -- prosecution rests

That happened yesterday.

Why aren't there more self surrenders?

Brian Tannebaum has this interesting post on self surrendering defendants to face charges. He argues that defense lawyers should be able to voluntarily surrender a defendant when that person and the lawyer know about the charges in advance:

The purpose of an arrest is to take the defendant into custody and present them before a judge or have them bonded out immediately. It's not a damn prize or game.And I'm tired of prosecutors telling me "I'm not going to interfere with their desire to arrest your client." What are you all so afraid of? Tell the officers/agents, I know this defense attorney, he keeps his word, let his client surrender. If they say no, so be it.

This issue actually comes up quite frequently in this District. Wouldn't it save everyone a great deal of time and resources if there was more cooperation on self surrendering a defendant? What say you SDFLA readers?