Bonanno crew busted

Curt Anderson covers the infiltration of the South Florida crew here. The intro:

An FBI agent posing as a crooked businessman with ties to shady bankers was key to the indictment announced Thursday of 11 people on charges they ran a South Florida racket for New York's Bonanno organized crime family.
The unidentified agent was able to gain the trust of the crew and its leader, Thomas Fiore, by seeming to provide them with access to foreign bank accounts to launder criminal cash as well as help with drug trafficking and sale of stolen goods, according to the indictment.
All the while, the undercover agent wore a hidden recording device that captured their conversations. The FBI also recorded numerous telephone conversations between Fiore, other members of the crew and senior Bonanno bosses.

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."

I don't know who Magistrate Wallace Dixon is (apparently he's from the Middle District of North Carolina) but I he's jumped up my favorite judge list. Apparently Rudy Giuiani's son, Andrew Giuliana, got kicked off the Duke golf team and sued in federal court for breach of contract. The team countered that he got dropped because he assaulted a teammate, defied coaches, and violated "both the rules and the spirit of the game of golf." He lost, of course, but Judge Dixon had a lot of fun writing the R&R -- even citing Caddyshack*:

Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim... brings to mind Carl Spackler's analysis from the movie Caddyshack (Orion Pictures 1980): "He's on his final hole. He's about 455 yards away, he's gonna hit about a 2 iron, I think."

*And for those non-Caddyshack people out there, the title is another great line from the movie.

The Sun-Sentinel *sucks*

I had a lot to post about tonight -- from Paris to dumb associates to heavy Cuban accents -- but instead I'm going to tell you how stupid the Sun-Sentinel is. That paper, which has always given the Herald a run for its money, had one of the young star reporters in South Florida: Vanessa Blum. And it fired her today.

Why?

Well, the Sun-Sentinel let Vanessa go today because it has partnered up with the Herald and decided that it could simply buy the Herald federal court coverage for its paper. The Herald will use some Sun-Sentinel coverage of local school board stuff for its paper. And on and on. Rumpole made the point about the dying newspaper business here when he was covering the Herald's firing of Susannah Nesmith:

Here's the point with the BBC stuff- if these trends keep up, local news will soon be gone. No one to report on County Commissioners doubling dipping into their expense accounts; no one to wander the hallways of the courthouse at 2PM and write about all the Judges missing; no one to write about the cops accused of misconduct and no one to write about the injustice of trying defendants over and over until the government gets a conviction.

We can function without Susannah Nesmith. We cannot function without the Susannah Nesmith's of the world. It's a scary thought that the free press is fading away not with an assault against the first amendment, but because the morons who made the business decisions for newspapers didn't see five years ago Craigslist was about to cripple their classified ad income.

President Obama recently referred to a quote from the nation's third president, Thomas Jefferson: "If he had the choice between government with newspapers or newspapers without government, he'd choose the latter." (Rumpole, I just cited to you, Obama, and Jefferson to make a point. What's wrong with that picture?)

Now, this is no knock on Jay Weaver and Curt Anderson, who are also friends of the blog, but they can't cover the entire District by themselves. And of course we have the DBR, which is committed to covering the federal courts. But while they are covering a big case in Miami, who will be tending the store in Lauderdale? What about Palm Beach and Ft. Pierce? And Vanessa broke her share of Miami stories as well -- the latest being the sealing issues in the Mutual Benefits case, which everyone is now looking in to.

I understand budgets and the crisis facing the newspaper industry. But what's the point of having a paper if you are giving up your local coverage? The whole reason people buy the Sun-Sentinel is because of reporters like Vanessa. Without that local coverage, why do we need a Ft. Lauderdale paper?

Vanessa will land on her feet -- she's smart, personable and a great reporter. I wonder where the Sun-Sentinel will land if it keeps this up.

UPDATE -- Bob Norman has a list of the others who have been laid off.

“While some of the tales of woe emanating from the court are enough to bring tears to the eyes...

...it is true that only Supreme Court justices and schoolchildren are expected to and do take the entire summer off.”

That was John Roberts' response in 1983 to White House counsel Fred Fielding, who asked Roberts to evaluate a proposal then in circulation to create a kind of super appeals court to assist the Supreme Court with its ostensibly pressing workload. The New Yorker has a lenghty and compelling article about Roberts here, called "No More Mr. Nice Guy." It's certainly worth a read and has lots of inside stories about Roberts.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, it just granted cert in Conrad Black's case to decide the reach of the "honest services fraud" component of the mail fraud statute.

Or, if it's really a slow day, you can check out how much the airport can see when it does "whole body imaging."

Jay Weaver covers Liberty City verdict

Check out the interesting piece in the Herald today.

Here's the intro:

Did booting a holdout juror off the panel seal the fate of the Liberty City Six?

That is a central issue in the courtroom documents released last week after the five guilty verdicts that attracted national attention.

Known only as Juror No. 4, the woman was accused by 11 fellow jurors, prosecutors and the judge of refusing to deliberate in the federal terrorism-conspiracy case. However, in jury notes the woman said she wanted to ''see this trial to the end'' but could not withstand the pressure she was facing to change her stance -- presumably ``not guilty.''
Had she held out, prompting a third mistrial in the controversial case, the five men now facing lengthy prison sentences could have walked out of the courtroom free, because the U.S. attorney's office in Miami had already said it wouldn't try them a fourth time.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard's removal of the juror will be the centerpiece of defense appeals, based on claims that their clients didn't receive a fair trial. After Juror No. 4, a black woman, was replaced by a black male alternate, the 12-member panel convicted five of the six defendants Tuesday on charges of conspiring with the notorious global terrorist organization al Qaeda.

''Her note clearly shows that the other jurors tried to convince her to change her beliefs about the case,'' said attorney Richard Houlihan, who represented the sole acquitted defendant, Naudimar Herrera.

''They didn't agree with her, but that doesn't mean she wasn't deliberating with them,'' Houlihan said. 'Her factual beliefs were at odds with the other jurors'. Absolutely it was going to be a hung jury if she had been allowed to stay on.

The article even has a Moran/Abbell reference, citing back to when Judge Hoeveler dismissed a juror:

To follow up, Judge Lenard reviewed a precedent-setting appeals court decision from a 1998 trial in which a Miami juror was removed from a 12-member panel because she refused to deliberate. U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler removed the woman because she spent the time working on her nails.

Lenard heeded Hoeveler's example, first by questioning the 11 other panelists about Juror No. 4. They all said she was turning her back on them when they sought her opinion, and most quoted her as saying that she doesn't believe in or trust the law.

Appellate lawyer extraordinaire Richard Klugh got all Survivor on us and had this to say about the law:

An appeals expert in South Florida said the ultimate question is whether a juror is doing his or her job.

''It seems that the jurors in this case tried to make that decision themselves, as they appeared deadlocked,'' said attorney Richard C. Klugh Jr., who reviewed the notes. ``What you don't want is a situation like [the TV show] Survivor, where the majority of the jurors vote to kick a juror off the island just because of preference.''

Klugh said the removal of the juror will be a ''substantial issue'' in the defense team's motion for a new trial and eventual appeals.

"43 stun-gunned at prisons' Take Your Kids to Work Day"

For real!

Justice Moreno??

Obama's short list for filling Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court has been leaked. And there's a Moreno on the list. Unfortunately, it's not our Moreno -- it's California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno (that's him on the left). Here's the rest of list:

Solicitor General Elena Kagan
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
U.S. Appeals Court judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Pamela Wood

This and that

1. Mike Tein is in the NY Times today, discussing the Liberty City verdict: “If you sledgehammer the square peg three times, eventually you’re going to blast it into the round hole. This isn’t a terrorism case; it’s an overcharged gang case.”

2. Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley imposed death sentences today on Daniel Troya and Ricardo Sanchez Jr. in the Turnpike murder case. It is the first federal death penalty case in the District. A snippet from the AP article:

"I must confess I have no confidence that Mr. Troya would not do this again if the opportunity presented itself," the judge said before reading the sentence.
Troya was shackled around the waist and guarded by four bailiffs. He offered an apology during the hearing, .
"First and foremost, to the victims and family members, I would like to apologize," he said. "Basically, I'm sorry to my family, the people that put faith in me to be good."
He also apologized for throwing a plastic water bottle at prosecutors in March after a jury recommended the death penalty for Troya and co-defendant Ricardo Sanchez Jr.
As he was led from the courtroom, Troya nodded to his mother, father and sister, who were silently crying.
The judge said Troya grew up in a "wonderful family" and added, "I have no idea how Mr. Troya got to be the person he is today, but he is an enormously dangerous person who has no regard for the taking of a human life."

3. And Jason Taylor re-signed with the Fins today.

Sentencing question

So will the Liberty City 7 6 5 get more or less time than Jose Padilla? Remember that Judge Cooke sentenced Padilla to 17 years and his co-defendants to less time. (The over-under line was 20 years). Certainly the Liberty City defendants will be citing to Padilla's case and arguing that they should get way less time. We'll set the over-under in this case at 17 years, the same sentence that Padilla received, for the lead defendant. What do you all think the appropriate sentences are now that they have been convicted?

Five of six convicted in Liberty City 6 case

Naudimar Herrera was acquitted (represented by Richard Houlihan). The rest, including lead defendant Narseal Batiste, were convicted. Initial Herald article here.

UPDATE (4:24pm): South Florida Lawyers has a funny post on the verdict. The Sun-Sentinel covers the case here. And the AP is also covering the case. Sentencing for the 5 convicted is set for July 26.

What an unbelievable case. Press releases by the Attorney General. Three really long trials. Two hung juries. Tens of millions of dollars spent. Two acquittals. An acquitted defendant being deported. Five convictions. Sick jurors. Replaced jurors. And now the appeals...

Should prosecutors hire jury consultants?

Michael Froomkin, blogging at Discourse, raises the very interesting question here. From his post:

If the US Attorney’s office uses jury consultants to tell them how to select a prosecution-friendly jury, that would seem to me to be not just unsavory, but to raise some due process and right to jury trial issues.

But, I have to say that based on a cursory survey of the literature, it seems my instincts here may be misplaced: I’ve found half a dozen academic articles that just report on this phenomenon as if there is nothing odd or unsavory about it; if anything the drift is that the poor under-resourced prosecutors (the ones who just spent $5-10 million on the Liberty Six trials) need consultants to level the playing field.

I suppose if all the consultants are doing is helping the prosecution spin better then that doesn’t raise a constitutional question, although I still think that it is not a good use of public money. But if they are helping prosecutors identify pro-prosecution jurors, even by attitudinal rather then demographic factors, that seems to to me to take us yet another step away from the jury system we would wish for.

Some surely would say that the government is only responding to an arms race started by wealthy criminal defendants and, who knows, there may be something to that in some cases. But in this case the defendants are not wealthy. Has the public defender’s office got jury consultants too? If they do, couldn’t they make a non-aggression pact on the jury consultants and save us all some money?

Prosecutors use jury consultants in high-profile cases all of the time. Other than the cost, I had never thought that it was an issue, but Froomkin raises some interesting points. Thoughts?

FBA lunch this Wednesday

Judge John Gleeson is speaking at the Federal Bar Luncheon this Wednesday at the Banker's Club at 11:45. Please RSVP to Celeste Higgins at Celeste_Higgins@fd.org

Gleeson is a District Judge in the Eastern District of New York, and was a former federal prosecutor -- the same John Gleeson that prosecuted John Gotti.

Gotti's defense lawyer, Albert Krieger, will be in attendance. Should be fun...

Back from the West Coast

It was a fun week in San Francisco (I can't believe I missed the Father Cutié drama)...

I see the blog was in good hands while I was away. Rick was great and we hope to have him back on a regular basis.

Just a couple of quick hits before we get going for the week:

-- The Liberty City 6 jury (the latest version of it) will continue deliberating this week. That case is truly jinxed... (In his post on last week's LC6 happenings, Rick missed Mike Tein -- who, of course, is the most quotable lawyer in the District -- from the Blum article: "What a shameful waste of our taxes at the worst possible time. Just think what $10 million could have done for our schoolchildren in Liberty City.")

-- The District now has a Wiki page. It's interesting to look at the historical makeup of the Court. (Some trivia pointed out on the page: "This federal district has the dubious distinction of having had more judges removed through impeachment than any other district, with a total of two, one-third of all federal district judges so removed.")

-- Justice O'Connor had this to say about judicial elections: "They're awful. I hate them." More here.

-- Rick posted on the FIU faculty vote for Dean, and FIU law professor Howard Wasserman has a lot to say about the vote and the coverage here. Howard criticizes the open proceedings and compares it to watching sausages being made. Gotta disagree with Howard here -- we wanna know how sausages are made. Open proceedings are a good thing. Better to have the press in there and reporting (even if the coverage in this case wasn't complete) than the alternative of having the doors closed.

-- Rumpole demonstrates why the Ben Kuehne case needs to be dismissed.

D.O.M. canned me

Honestly, I don't know how D.O.M. does this and runs a practice. It's like being Dick Vitale and Coach K for the same game. Anyway, a week of wearing just one hat was nearly more than he could take. And this morning's little joke certainly didn't help. As soon as he saw that, my blogging was done. He was all, "You're totally out of hand," and, "You're not taking blogging seriously," and, "People depend on this," and the whole nine. I know, I know: It's like Stewart firing Colbert for being too silly, but he was pretty mad.

"Did you say you were going to apply to be U.S. Attorney?"

"I said I was thinking about—"

"And you're not going to apply, are you?"

"Of course not, but I'm pretty sure people got that."

"And did you not use my PACER account for a post about Paris Hilton?"

"Sure, but—"

"And did you not ignore all the comments from my readers?"

"Stop crossing me, D. I'm not some government agent," I said. "At least as far as you and Acosta know."

D.O.M. went slackjawed. He had the exact look that Carrie Underwood's boyfriend must have had when he saw what she did to his truck.

"What?" I said. "Too soon?"

Let's all get together for some legal research

Judge Gold set an evidentiary hearing for July 13th to sort out whether treaties or Swiss law prevent UBS from divulging account holder names to the IRS, reports the DBR. (The link is for subscribers only.) According to the article by John Pacenti, Gold ordered the Attorney General to explain by June 30th whether the IRS position is correct. Anyone making assertions about what Swiss law says needs to be in court for the hearing.

Game on

Dear Curt, David, and Willie—

I'm thinking about applying for that U.S. Attorney gig. I wanted you guys to hear it from me.

Money is no object

I was getting a little desperate for something on the Liberty City 6 trial. Jay Weaver has been redeployed to the Herald's team on the scandal over Father Television's day at the beach. Fortunately, Vanessa Blum came through with something on theme for the SDFla Blog. It's a nice piece on the extraordinary cost of trying this case three times. Grossman Roth's Seth Miles, who was once across the aisle from me during my long stretch in Judge Ungaro's courtroom, has a nice quote, which is good to see. UF Professor Michael Seigel's kicker pretty much nails it, I think: "It's worth it if they are, in fact, terrorists. It's not worth it if they were a bunch of street kids saying stupid things."

Of course, a lot of what we do is relatively expensive. Back in the day, I used to marvel at the extraordinary expense that the U.S.A. put into a simple airport swallower case. If you added up the judge time, AUSA time, AFPD time, USPO time, agent time, court reporter time, interpreter time, and whatever else I'm forgetting, it was probably a good bit of money. But that's what makes our system of justice better than some system of summary or inquisitorial justice, which would be anathematic to the Republic. Anyway, it's not like the government would find a better use for this money. So, might as well let the lawyers, jury consultants, and graphic designers have it.

P.S. The New Times has this short post on its blog about the case.

Paris to answer questions from The Chief's witness chair?

The media are giddy over poor Paris' deposition in connection with Goldberg v. Paris Hilton Entertainment, Inc., a case pending before The Chief. Tew Cardenas represents the receiver for a local company that invested in a movie Paris was in but allegedly did not do enough to promote. Judging from some of the excerpts, I don't really know what they expected her to do. I can't even tell from her answers whether the questions that presumably instigated these were asked by her lawyers or the receiver's:

"Any chance I got, any red carpet, any press, if I was doing something for another product ... I would just bring it up, 'Oh, my new sorority film, it's going to be sexy, it's going to be really hot girls'—like I really, you know, did my best."

About her role as an executive producer:

"I'm not sure what a producer does, but—I don't know, help get cool people in the cast."

And the quote that everyone is jumping on, in response to who paid her cell phone bill:

"I don't know. I'm assuming, like, whoever pays my bills. I never ask about that stuff."

Seems like she's her own worst enemy, doesn't it? I mean, look at her—she's wearing heels on South Beach, and that hipster she's with is too self-involved to let her know that just isn't safe.

Even though this is being reported all over the Internet, only the Associated Press appears to have done original reporting, so these quotes are all we have of her deposition. But SDFla Blog doesn't just pilfer other people's news. We look into these important matters to put our own unique spin on them. (For this, we use D.O.M.'s PACER account.) Here it is:

Apparently, it's going to be a bench trial, if it comes to that. Can you just imagine what this will be like for The Chief? Or for this poor Paris creature? Incidentally, I love that The Chief denies Paris Hilton Entertainment's motion to seal certain documents with this flourish of rhetorical questions:

Many of the documents in Exhibit 1 are not financial records. For example, what is the need to file under seal the resume of CPA David Nolte, the list of his appearances in other court proceedings and his publications? Certainly those items need not be filed under seal. Also, how do the parties intend to proceed to trial and discuss the financial concepts in this case? Will it not be done in an open courtroom? If so, then why should it be sealed now?

That's basically the entire order. Classic stuff. I mean, you can almost hear his voice, can't you?

The birds and the Indians

It turns out D.O.M. reads the comments. I know, I know. I couldn't believe it either. He says to me, "You need to write about civil cases. And someone said you're posting too much. Also, some people want to see pictures of handsome men."

"D, those are anonymous. There's no accountability. They can say anything. You have to treat them like fortune cookies."

Anyway, there's no convincing him, so here's one about a civil case with a picture of a cute bird. That's as far as I'm giving in:

Your gambling losses may help save an endangered Everglades species of hawk from the government's efforts to save an endangered Everglades species of sparrow. The Miccosukee Indians sued the Fish & Wildlife Service alleging that its efforts to protect the sparrows were flooding the hawks' habitat, a third of which happens to be on tribal lands. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on Tuesday most of Judge Moore's decision in favor of the government. It agreed with the Tribe, however, that the Service had to specify a low-point in the population of hawks that would trigger further review. The Service had claimed that the birds were too hard to count and elected to use water levels as a trigger instead. Noting that the Service seems to have counted the birds every year since 1969, Judge Carnes vacated that part of Judge Moore's decision and remanded the case:

The goal of the Endangered Species Act is to protect populations of species, and using habitat markers when population data is available is like turning on the weather channel to see if it is raining instead of looking out a window.

It's a pretty entertaining read as these things go. The Tribe was represented by Lehtinen Vargas & Riedi.

Zarabozo sentenced to life

Judge Huck imposed five consecutive life sentences plus 85 years on 21-year-old Guillermo Zarabozo for his role in the murders and other crimes committed aboard the Joe Cool. Zarabozo maintained that his accomplice Kirby Archer, who is serving a life sentence, was solely responsible for the killings.

Faculty disapproves Acosta's bid for FIU deanship

The FIU College of Law faculty recommended that the university not offer the deanship to U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, reports the DBR (whose article is available only with a paid subscription) and the Sun-Sentinel. The faculty endorsed two candidates, Beto Juarez, dean of the DU Sturm College of Law—a fantastic place to spend spring semester teaching criminal procedure and skiing—and Joel Friedman, a Tulane Law professor. The recommendations are not binding on the FIU president and provost but traditionally are seriously considered.

The "maybe-nots" have it (updated)

Have a rough day at the office ahead of you today? I bet Judge Lenard can sympathize. Apparently, "sternly order[ing]" the jurors in the Liberty City 6 trial "to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate" (as Curt Anderson put it for AP) did not do the trick. But she is not giving up on them yet. Motion for mistrial denied.

UPDATE: Deliberations are starting again with a new alternate subbing-in for the person now known as "the recalcitrant juror".

A tiresome rant on grammar but you get a free DFW essay out of it

So, the other day I'm at the gym over at the U and one of the undergrads who works there is all excited about his LSAT score and can't wait to apply to law school. I ask him how he feels about grammar and diagramming sentences, and he looks at me like I'm some kind of walking non-sequitur because what he's really good at is arguing.

If only I'd had a copy of yesterday's Flores-Figueroa v. United States in my pocket. This was reported under such headlines as "Justices Limit Use of Identity Theft Law in Immigration Cases" and "High court removes tool for deporting illegals." Those are, of course, much more grabby than the more accurate, "Court rules adverb 'knowingly' modifies entire predicate and its object." Few under 35 would have any idea what that headline meant. (The late, great David Foster Wallace explains why in this brilliant piece that takes a little while to download because it's a pretty big file but is completely worth it.) I can't imagine what they would make of the crux of Justice Breyer's reasoning, which was this:

In ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence.

Dismaying as it is, a world where judges and lawyers don't have a command of grammar—the kind you get from diagramming hundreds of sentences—is anarchic.

The Court's other decisions yesterday would probably reinforce the point (if I had a really good reason to slog through them) because they all involve "statutory interpretation," which is legalese for grammar. Two are about civil procedure issues—a remand of state claims to state court is appealable even though the statute says it isn't and the circuit courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a denial of a stay of arbitration. One is about liability under CERCLA. (Shell won; that's as far as I want to get into that one.)

Too much democracy

Go here right now and type in David Oscar Markus. Or copy and paste it. I've made it easy for you.

P.S. If you are interested in keeping up with every pundit's musings on who should get Souter's seat, How Appealing has enough links to suck up your whole work day.

Help Wanted

So, D.O.M. calls and he's all, "Why haven't you posted anything all day long?" and I'm like, "Dude, I've been working like a dog, yo," and he's all up in my face with, "Doing what?" like he's the boss of me or whatevers and I'm like, "Grading papers and exams," and then he busts out with, "What's all that wind?" like if he doesn't know I like to grade on the Bay and now that's gonna be a thing because, "Think of the Blog!" and everything.

Anyway, the races are on. Applications are now being taken for district judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals. Here's the official announcement:

Pursuant to the instructions set forth in the attached letter from Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Mel Martinez, dated April 30, 2009, the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications for the following positions:
U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Middle District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Southern District of Florida

The revised Rules of Procedure for the Judicial Nominating Commission, dated April 30, 2009, application forms with incorporated instructions, and the names and addresses of the members of the Commission are available at the following Web sites:

1) The Florida Bar; 2) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; 3) the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and 4) the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In addition, these materials may also be obtained from the Commission Chair, John M. Fitzgibbons, The Law Offices of John M. Fitzgibbons, 707 North Franklin St., Suite 700, Tampa, FL 33602.

Completed applications must be received by the Commission Chair and commission members in the manner specified by the Rules of Procedure by 5 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2009. Applicants who are selected by the commission for personal interviews will be subsequently notified as to the date, time and location of the interviews.

You have to figure they'll be about this careful, so this can't be fun. And above is what the SDFla looked like today if you were busy grading papers like I was.

"Please help us, judge."

It didn't take. The mind-wipe, I mean. It didn't work.

Friday afternoon, deliberations over the fate of the Liberty City Six hit a new snag, according to reports by the Associated Press and the Miami Herald. Here's the abridged version of the AP report:

A few hours after an ill juror was replaced, a note signed by the jury foreman in the "Liberty City Six" case said a female juror "refuses to engage in discussions based on the evidence or the law" and that this could be "unfair to the defendants," according to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard. The note said the juror was disruptive and had made comments offensive to others.

"Please help us, judge," the note said, adding the juror "feels deliberating is a waste of time."

In court Friday, the juror accused of not wanting to deliberate also sent her own note, complaining that she feels under "attack" from the others and hinted she may have made comments about the law that were "misinterpreted."

After summarizing the notes in court, Lenard summoned the jurors back into court and sternly ordered them to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate. Lenard told the panel to return Monday.

"This may clear up the problem," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "Maybe not."

SDFla Blog Origins

This month Hollywood brings us the career-beginning adventures of Wolverine and the mutants and (way more importantly) the crew of the Starship Enterprise. So I thought I'd stay on theme and screen the clip of how D.O.M. came to start this blog.

And that's how it happened.

Judge Altonaga feted in New Haven

The Latino Law Students Association at Yale Law School is awarding SDFla Judge Altonaga (YLS '86) its Public Service Award tonight at New Haven's Union League Café. Dean (and Supreme Court Candidate®) Harold Koh is scheduled to attend. Last year, LLSA honored Judge (and Supreme Court Candidate®) José Cabranes (which we know because they have yet to update their web site). Maybe they'll post some pictures or a nice blurb on their blog or Facebook page.

The photo is YLS's Sterling Law Building in 2006 and the guy who wouldn't get out of my shot.

Bern backs UBS

The government of Switzerland filed an elegantly understated amicus brief for Judge Gold's consideration on Thursday (according to PACER) or yesterday (according to the media). The upshot of it is that enforcement of the United States' summons—which it implies (but refrains from outright saying) is just a "fishing expedition"—circumvents the applicable treaty and violates Swiss law. Here is the very abridged version:

The Government of Switzerland has a strong interest in the preservation of the integrity of Swiss law and sovereignty and in promoting respect by the United States of its international treaty obligations to Switzerland.

If the Court were to order UBS to produce evidence from Switzerland, and backed that order with coercive powers, the Court would be substituting its own authority for that of the competent Swiss authorities, and therefore would violate Swiss sovereignty and international law.

The Wall Street Journal reports that an IRS agent speaking at a financial conference in Miami confirms that more "John Doe" summonses are in the works.

Souter succession speculation

ABC News Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford Greenberg canceled her scheduled appearance today at the Eleventh Circuit Judicial Extravaganza in Birmingham. Instead, she stayed in Washington to contribute to the frenzy of speculation about Justice Souter's successor. (The President is chatting with Souter in the photo, which is from the White House's new Flickr photostream.)

The Wall Street Journal has a fun graphic with scary mugshots of leading contenders. The Economist includes former President Clinton among the hopefuls. CNN lists seemingly everyone imaginable except Bill—including SDFla's Judge Jordan, whom this blog has previously all but endorsed.

As for Souter, he's not yet gone but already seems to be forgotten. Justice Stevens wrote today about Souter that "the Court will suffer a far greater loss than many now realize." That's almost certainly true as even the illuminati of constitutional law seemed at a painful loss today to dig up even one defining, signature Souter opinion in United States Reports. Professor Powe of Texas summed it up: "He couldn’t be my favorite for what he wrote; he was my favorite for what he was." (Souter did write one that shows how crafty he is—Brendlin v. California (2007)—but I'm apparently not on the New York Times' speed-dial.)

"I direct you to wipe your minds clean."

That was Judge Lenard instructing the Liberty City jury to start over with its deliberations, after replacing a sick juror with an alternate. Here is Jay Weaver's article.

Guest Blogger

Professor Ricardo Bascuas has agreed to guest-blog next week. Have fun!

Justice Souter retiring at the end of the Term

WOW!! Big news!!

Here's ScotusBlog:

Justice David H. Souter has decided to retire when the Supreme Court completes its current Term in early summer, the NBC-TV network reported Thursday night. The 69-year-old jurist, who is completing his 19th year on the Court, has passed word of his plans to others, and the White House has been told, according to the network’s account. Other news organizations also were reporting that Souter has made his decision not to continue serving.
By leaving office this summer, Souter will be giving President Obama time to select and seek Senate approval of the new Chief Executive’s first appointee to the Nation’s highest court before the Court returns for a new Term on Oct. 5. That process could be slowed, however, if the President chooses a nominee who would stir such opposition among conservatives that Senate action could be slowed. With Democrats in control of the Senate, however, Obama’s choice almost certainly would win approval.
Even if the President were to pick a decidedly liberal new Justice, it would not bring a strong shift in the current Court’s direction, since four conservatives along with their sometime ally, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, tend to control outcomes on many key issues.

Well, now we can start our who will replace Souter sweepstakes. Any chance it's someone from the 11th or our District? We've had prospects before... In fact, the very first post on this blog urged then-President Bush to appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court. So, who are our best prospects?

John S. Kastrenakes new Circuit Judge in Palm Beach

Another mistrial?

The Liberty City 6 case looks like it's on the way to another mistrial...

UPDATE -- 4PM -- Judge Lenard dismissed the sick juror. She is hearing arguments about replacing that juror with an alternate. Here's the Herald article.

Original post from this morning addressing the problem:

Here's the Herald article:

Jury deliberations in the third terrorism trial of a group of inner-city Miami men accused of collaborating with al Qaeda were delayed Thursday because a juror has fallen ill and cannot return until next week.
Prosecutors argued that the remaining 11 members of the jury should continue to deliberate without the 12th juror, but defense lawyers opposed that recommendation. Instead, they argued that the judge replace the 12th member with an alternate juror, stressing that the panel had only started its deliberations on Monday.

Why would the government want to proceed with 11? Read on...

Defense lawyers seemed especially concerned about the potential loss of the one juror because he is a black man who they believe might be sympathetic to the six defendants, who are also mostly black. They even asked the judge to suspend the deliberations until the 12th juror, whose illness was not disclosed, could return next Wednesday, as recommended by his doctor. ''He's a black juror,'' defense attorney Louis Casuso said. ``He's one of the very few that has no problems.''
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard rejected suspending deliberations, saying they must continue because of the length of the trial. ''It's really not an issue of race; it's an issue of illness,'' she told the defense team.

What about adding the alternate:

Lenard told both sides to return later Thursday to argue further over adding an alternate as the 12th juror for deliberations, instead of going forward with the 11 existing members. If the judge decides to add an alternate juror, it would be an Hispanic woman.
The judge would then tell the jury to begin its deliberations anew.
The racially mixed, 12-member jury started deliberations on Monday after a two-month trial, but the one juror fell ill early on Wednesday.
They are deciding whether the defendants, dubbed the Liberty City 6, are guilty of conspiring with the global terrorist group, al Qaeda, to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago along with major federal buildings in Miami and other cities.
The first two trials ended with hung juries and the acquittal of one defendant, a lawful U.S. resident named Lyglenson Lemorin who is facing deportation to his native Haiti.
Prosecutors tried to portray the group's ringleader, Narseal Batiste, as a militant figure who used his Moorish religious organization to recruit followers to destroy the United States. They accused Batiste and his followers of taking an oath to al Qaeda and shooting photographs of target sites in Miami to prepare for their destructive mission.
Defense attorneys attacked the prosecution's case as a setup led by an FBI informant who posed as an al Qaeda representative to lure the men into a fictitious terrorism conspiracy. They said that the men were struggling construction workers trying to help their poor community by establishing the religious group in a Liberty City warehouse.
Awaiting verdicts again on four terror-related conspiracy counts are: Batiste, 35; Patrick Abraham, 29; Stanley Grant Phanor, 33; Rotschild Augustine, 25; Burson Augustin, 24; and Naudimar Herrera, 25. The first two defendants are being held at the Federal Detention Center. The latter four were released on bond after the second mistrial last year.
If convicted on all four charges, including conspiring to provide material support for al Qaeda, each defendant could face up to 70 years in prison.

Supreme Court affirms 11th Circuit...

... in US v. Dean. Chief Justice Roberts opens the opinion this way:

Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies whenthe gun goes off accidentally.

With that intro, it's not surprising that the Court said yes and affirmed the 11th Circuit.

In other news, the feds charged a man with trying to get rocket technology to South Korea. Curt Anderson has the story here:

A Korean-American who served prison time for attempting to broker the sale of deadly nerve gas bombs to Iran was indicted Wednesday on new charges of trying to help South Korea obtain advanced Russian rocket hardware and technology.
Investigators also found thousands of e-mails allegedly sent by Juwhan Yun, a 68-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Short Hills, N.J., involving other deals for sophisticated radar and air defense systems, short-wave infrared cameras, laser-guided bomb components and missile launch devices.
Yun is quoted in one e-mail as boasting that he has been "the largest one-stop supplier" of sensitive military and similar equipment for South Korea for the past 30 years.

"There is no constitutionally significant difference between masturbating in front of a minor in person versus doing so via web camera."

That's the Eleventh Circuit in USA v. Aldrich. Not sure I have anything to add to that one.

Moving on to other appellate news, the 11th Circuit reversed Judge Highsmith's sentence of probation for James Hendrick, "once Monroe County's powerful government attorney." Here's Jay Weaver's article and here's the opinion. The entire analysis on the sentencing is as follows:

The government cross-appeals Hendrick’s below-guidelines sentence. After
carefully reviewing the record and considering the arguments that the parties
briefed and orally argued, we agree with the government that the sentence is both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We accordingly vacate it and
remand for resentencing.

That's it? I understand (sort of) short opinions from appellate courts when they affirm, but to reverse with no analysis...

What say you dear readers? I have taken off moderation, so please be appropriate in the comments.

Cert petition denied for Sal Magluta

Here's the AP:

A reputed cocaine kingpin has lost his fight to reduce his 195-year prison term.
The Supreme Court, acting Monday, rejected an appeal from Salvador Magluta, who was convicted of laundering at least $730,000 in drug money and bribing a juror at an earlier trial. The federal appeals court in Atlanta threw out the bribery count, but otherwise upheld the lengthy sentence.
Magluta asked the high court to take his case to consider whether the government should have been barred from trying him again after a jury acquitted him in 1996 of charges based on the same conduct. He also disputed the sentence's length since the judge acknowledged he took into account money laundering charges on which the jury found Magluta not guilty.
The case is Magluta v. U.S., 08-731.

TalkLeft has coverage of the case here.

Here's $60K to go work somewhere else

Apparently some of the big firms in DC, Boston, and New York are paying people to take a year off and work at a public interest job. Here's the Boston Globe story. Any word of that happening here in Miami?

From the article:

With his degree from Harvard Law School due in June, Juan Valdivieso makes an attractive prospective hire, and last summer, he scooped up a postgraduation job offer from the white-shoe firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in his native Washington, D.C.

But as the recession deepens, budgets tighten - even at top-notch law firms. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius e-mailed Valdivieso last month that it would have to defer his employment for a year, until the fall of 2010. But the company threw him a lifeline: It would pay him a $60,000 stipend if he spent the year after graduation at an unpaid public service job. The 28-year-old is looking for work in an organization that will indulge his interest either in civil rights or consumer protection.

What up SDFLA?

It was a nice weekend, no? The weather was fantastic. It was cooler here than in New York this weekend.

Plus, the Heat won. Jermaine O'Neal is showing why we traded for him.


The Dolphins had a nice draft. We addressed our needs and got some big upside with our first couple of picks.

Too bad the Marlins are in a funk after starting the year 11-1... Getting swept back-to-back is ugly.

So what's on tap this week? We may get a verdict in the Liberty City 6 case. Any other trials starting up? Give me a shout and let me know what's going on...

Interesting news in DC -- the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case have hired lawyers, to be paid for by DOJ. Here's the BLT story on it. Those lawyers can get $200/hour, not to exceed 120 hours a month. Chump change for most of the biglaw former AUSAs being hired...

That's your Sunday night ramble.

Only in South Florida...

1. Law firm handling "Chinese dry wall" cases has that same problem in their office. (Palm Beach Post)

2. "Lauderdale Lakes woman stole ID to pay for tummy tuck, feds say." (Sun-Sentinel)

3. Mutual Benefits sealed documents to remain under seal. (Sun-Sentinel)

Roy Black interviewed on Helio case

Tom Withers, who runs the awesome Federal Criminal Defense Blog out of Savannah, Georgia, has this great interview of Roy Black. Check it out.

Here's the intro question and answer:

Q: Thanks for your time and congratulations on the not guilty verdicts in the Helio Castroneves case. Any indication from the government on whether they will retry the conspiracy count against Castroneves and his sister?

Mr. Black: No, but in our view, the government can't retry Helio on conspiracy because of collateral estoppel. If the jury found no tax deficiency on the substantive evasion counts, then there was no unlawful plan. An agreement to comply with the tax code is not a crime. Or, if the jury found no willfulness on the evasion counts, then there can be no willfulness on the conspiracy. Either way we win. At a minimum we get interlocutory review in 11th Circuit before we start any litigation on this issue, we will meet with the government and see what their views are. There are civil remedies the government should be satisfied with.

Here's a snippet about a funny part of the trial with Bob Bennett:

Q: How was the experience of trying this case with Bob Bennett out of Washington, D.C.? Anything you gained from observing his courtroom demeanor/preparation?

Mr. Black: I have known and worked with Bob before and he is a wonderful lawyer. Not just that but the has a great sense of humor which really connects with the jury. One of the funnier parts of the trial dealt with Hugo Boss suits. The government claimed Helio should have reported the income from getting free suits from them. Our defense was that Hugo Boss was a sponsor of the racing team and Helio had to wear the suits. The claim was pretty petty. The total retail value of the suits was around $12,000. The summary government expert even admitted the amount was not material to the return. I cross-examined the CEO of Hugo Boss about how wonderful their suits were and that they wanted to show them off by having a slim good looking guy like Helio wear them. Then Bob got up, stuck his stomach out (which I can attest goes pretty far) and asked how would the suits look on his body. The jury got a good laugh out of that.

The Fourth Amendment is not dead yet...

...not even in cars. See Arizona v. Gant, decided today (holding that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest).

The lineup of Justices is interesting -- Scalia votes with the majority while Breyer dissents. I think that right now Justice Scalia might be the most pro-defendant Justice on the Court. No joke.

In other news, check out this editorial in the DBR by Patricia Acosta in which she discusses the recent administrative order allowing reporters to bring in their cell phones, but prohibiting them from using them inside the courtrooms. Here's the conclusion:

A thawing of the federal freeze on electronic access? Hardly. The order — citing federal policies and rules adopted when television cameras were the size of refrigerators and blinding lights were needed to make them work — spells out that while the devices can be brought in, they cannot be used. Use, the order says, would “violate the sanctity of the courtroom and disrupt ongoing judicial proceedings.” Past administrative orders banned only the use of cell phones and cameras inside courtrooms but said nothing about text messaging or e-mailing. This bring-don’t-use rule does not, in my opinion, reasonably advance a legitimate judicial interest nor is it required by the old policies or rules. It assumes that texting is the same thing as 1960s-style broadcasting when that plainly is not the case. It also sets the stage for real disruption when all those BlackBerry-toting scribes rush for the exits after each key development to knock out a few lines, then try to get back in to see what they’ve just missed. The truth is that tapping text on silenced electronic devices is no more disruptive of courtroom proceedings than scribbling on a piece of paper, whispering in someone’s ear, a yawn, or a nod of the head in reaction to a ruling or a critical admission. No significant noise is created by the mere act of pressing the keys of a device to create or view a message. Federal judges themselves type electronic messages throughout trials and hearings. They know this does not disrupt the proceedings. Why then, the rule? It’s obvious. Once the tweeting starts, we’ll have real time, electronic reporting on big federal trials. This won’t harm the dignity of the proceedings, but it will further the case for letting video cameras in the door as well. Of course, the case for allowing that to happen was proven not only 30 years ago but also throughout the last 30 years of Florida state court history, so federal judges ought not be afraid that if they now allow a little twittering to go on, it will force them to do what they should have done long ago. We finally have reached the era where knowledge can be transmitted at the speed of light from almost any place. This technological advancement is here to stay and makes the world a better place. In the courtroom, it allows the journalist instantly to report the defendant’s gasp and the relative’s tears as the freshly rendered verdict shocks through the air. Thirty years ago, the spirit of openness drove seven courageous Florida judges to embrace a bold new technology that made our democracy better. Their federal colleagues need to start down that path somewhere. Tweet.

Who will be the next U.S. Attorney?

Inside Track has a post here about the slow selection process. Here's a piece:

While other states are starting the interview process, the federal Judicial Nominating Commission in the Sunshine State still has not issued a notice seeking applications to replace Miami U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, whose term is up this summer. Acosta is interviewing Wednesday for the dean’s position at Florida International University’s law school.
The delay in calling for applications could mean that Acosta’s top assistant, Jeff Sloman, would likely serve as acting U.S. attorney. Sloman, a Democrat, is said to be interested in the job permanently.
Meanwhile, another potential applicant has emerged: Broward Circuit Judge Ilona M. Holmes.
After President Obama was elected and a turnover in U.S. attorneys was apparent, talk centered on Greenberg Traurig attorney Jackie Becerra, a Hispanic woman and the former right hand to U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez. But word is she’s happy at Greenberg, and her office confirmed Friday that she just adopted a baby. So, congratulations to Jackie.
Another name in the mix is Miami-Dade Assistant County Attorney Wilfredo Ferrer, a former federal prosecutor.
Other legal eagles who have surfaced as possible Acosta replacements are in alphabetical order David Buckner with Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables, Brian Miller at Akerman Senterfitt in Miami, Curtis Miner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, Mark Schnapp of Greenberg Traurig, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Daryl Trawick and Bruce Udolf at Berger Singerman in Fort Lauderdale.
Diversity came up as an issue for women, blacks and Cuban-American Democrats looking at the makeup of the 56-member commission. Among the names mentioned so far, Holmes and Trawick are black, and the rest are white males.

Will the feds retry Helio Castroneves?

As you all know by now, the jury acquitted Helio Castroneves and his co-defendants of all counts, save for one conspiracy count. Technically the government has the ability to retry Helio on that count. But will they?

In the past, this U.S. Attorney's office has retried defendants after hung juries -- for example, we are on the third Liberty City trial, and the office retried the Joe Cool case after it hung. But this is different because the jury acquitted Helio of every substantive count. I would be really surprised if the feds chose to retry this one count. The sense is that Helio won the trial and was vindicated, so a retrial would look petty and vindictive. Plus, there's no reason to believe that the next jury would have any more reason to find Helio guilty after the first jury rejected almost the entire case. What say you readers -- should the U.S. Attorney's office retry Helio on the one hung count?

(p.s. Rumpole, let me know if you want to double down on your last bet).

Helio Castroneves found not guilty

All three defendants found not guilty. The jury hung on one count as to Helio... I can't imagine that they would retry it. Congrats to him and his defense team.

Rumpole, get that Benjamin ready

The jurors in the Helio case asked for the opening statements to be read back today. Judge Graham said no, telling the jurors that opening statements weren't evidence. From Jay Weaver's article:

The jury said it reached a verdict on two tax-evasion counts against the 33-year-old Castroneves and deadlocked on five others -- including the leading conspiracy charge.
The panel also said it reached a verdict on one charge against the driver's sister/manager, Katiucia Castroneves, 35, but deadlocked on the other six.
Jurors said they did reach a verdict on four counts against Castroneves' sports lawyer, Alan R. Miller, 71, of Michigan, including the main conspiracy charge. Miller was not charged in the three other tax-evasion counts in the indictment.
One of Castroneves' lawyers, Roy Black, urged the judge to bring the deliberations -- now in their sixth day -- to a close. He asked Graham to announce the partial verdicts and to declare a mistrial on the deadlocked counts.
The judge refused.
Miller's attorney, Robert Bennett, then asked Graham if he would at least announce the jury's verdict for his client, saying the anticipation was ``sheer agony.''
Federal prosecutor Matt Axelrod opposed disclosure, raising concern about courtroom ''reaction'' if the jury's verdict on Miller was revealed at this point.
The judge sided with the government, denying Bennett's request.
It appears from the defense lawyers' requests in court that they're confident Miller may have been acquitted and that the jury may also have acquitted the Castroneves siblings on a least a few of the tax-evasion charges. A mistrial declared on the remaining counts would be an additional setback for the government.

BOP listserv moderator Howard Keiffer convicted

Many criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges are members of the BOP listserv, which was started by Howard Keiffer. Keiffer spoke at conferences around the country about the Bureau of Prisons and related issues. I emailed with him a couple times over the years... Turns out he wasn't a lawyer even though he appeared in about 20 different district courts. He was convicted this week in federal court. Here's the AP article:

A man accused of impersonating a lawyer in at least 10 states was convicted Wednesday of mail fraud and making false statements in what a government lawyer hoped would be the first of several federal prosecutions around the country.
It took only about an hour and a half for a federal jury in Bismarck to convict Howard O. Kieffer, who shrank in his chair and gulped as the verdict was read.
Authorities said Kieffer lied on his application to practice law in federal court, but still represented such clients as a former St. Louis Blues hockey player who pleaded guilty to plotting to kill his agent.
At the trial, two witnesses told the jury they each paid Kieffer at least $20,000 to appeal prison sentences for their loved ones, only to find out later that he wasn't a lawyer. Attorneys testified that they thought Kieffer was one of their colleagues because he seemed to know about federal court matters and because they saw him at attorney training seminars.
Kieffer's attorney, Joshua Lowther, called no witnesses, but he said the government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The 54-year-old from Duluth, Minn., faces up to 25 years in prison and a $500,000 fine; a sentencing date was not immediately set. Assistant U.S. Attorney David Hagler said Kieffer could be prosecuted in federal court in other states where he posed as a lawyer.

Here's an article by the ABA which goes into some depth about Keiffer. Worth a read.

Partial Verdict in Helio Castroneves case

The jury has reached a verdict on all counts as to the lawyer, Alan Miller. That verdict form has been placed in a sealed envelope. The jury has also reached verdicts on 3 counts as to Helio Castroneves and 2 counts as to his sister. The jury has been told to continue deliberating on the other 5 and 6 counts, respectively. Judge Graham gave the infamous "Allen charge" to the jury, otherwise known as the dynamite charge. More to come soon, I bet...

This can't be real, can it?

From the Sun-Sentinel:

With thick tape wrapped around his face, his hands bound and layers of shrink-wrap pinning him to a chair, the 17-year-old abductee was threatened with a blowtorch.His mother stood by, pleading on the phone for her ex-husband to pay the kidnappers.For the teenage captive, the ordeal inside a South Florida mobile home was very real. But for his mother, the FBI said Tuesday, it was all an act.According to a federal criminal complaint, the woman, with her boyfriend and his nephew acting as accomplices, staged the abduction last week in a bid to extort $50,000 from her ex-husband, a Southwest Ranches resident.

Here's what the FBI said happened:

At first, authorities thought they had rescued mother and son, but the teen recognized one of his captors as his mother's boyfriend, the complaint states.When investigators questioned Ponce and Boza, they implicated Arriaza, and all three eventually confessed, authorities said. It was not known Tuesday whether they had hired attorneys, and their relatives either could not be reached or declined to comment.Arriaza's ex-husband, identified in county court records as Hernan Pena, 41, also could not be reached. According to the FBI, it all began with the maternal promise of a meal and a fancy cell phone.Arriaza lured her unsuspecting son to a South Florida Wal-Mart on Thursday afternoon by telling him she would buy him an Apple iPhone and dinner, the agency's criminal complaint said.She intentionally left her white Honda Civic unlocked in the parking lot so Ponce could slip into the back seat with a fake gun, the FBI said. When Arriaza and her son returned to the car, Ponce sprang up, taped over the teen's eyes and ordered his mother to drive to his trailer on Southwest 127th Court in Miami-Dade County. Ponce reportedly called Pena and made ransom demands."During one of the calls, Arriaza informed (her ex-husband) that they were burning their son's feet and implored him to pay," according to the complaint.As Arriaza and Ponce watched, Boza held the lighted blow torch close enough to the teen's leg that it singed the hairs, authorities said.Pena quickly contacted the FBI, and investigators somehow tracked the mother and son to the trailer.