Crazy Monday...

Sorry for the slow blogging, but I've been running around all day.  A Mizzou grad posted 17 things he learned in law school (via ATL), and it's pretty funny.  So enjoy until I can get back to the blog:

1. Walk, don’t run from the police. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000).


2. A good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge. See DeMentas v. Estate of Tallas, 764 P.2d 628, 632 n.6 (Utah App. 1988) (quoting the “colorful, if occasionally irreverent” trial judge: “It’s hearsay, I agree, but it’s damn good hearsay, and I want to hear it.”).

3. A half-decent lawyer doesn’t belittle the judge’s hometown. See Smith v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 943 F. Supp. 782, 784 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (denying a motion to change venue: “Rather, Defendant will be pleased to discover that the highway is paved and lighted all the way to Galveston, and thanks to the efforts of this Court’s predecessor . . . the trip should be free of rustlers, hooligans, or vicious varmints of unsavory kind. Moreover, the speed limit was recently increased to seventy miles per hour on most of the road leading to Galveston, so Defendant should be able to hurtle to justice at lightning speed.”); see also id. at 784 n.2 (“Defendant will again be pleased to know that regular limousine service is available from Hobby Airport, even to the steps of this humble courthouse, which has got lights, indoor plummin’, ‘lectric doors, and all sorts of new stuff, almost like them big courthouses back East.”).

4. “The parties are advised to chill.” Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 908 (9th Cir. 2002).

5. You have a First Amendment right to shake what your momma gave you. G.Q. Gentlemen’s Quarters v. City of Lake Ozark, 83 S.W.3d 98, 102-03 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002).

6. When your state supreme court disciplines you for the third time, it’s unwise to pay your fine out of your IOLTA account, especially if the check says it’s from your IOLTA account. Doing this tends to get you disciplined for the fourth time. In re Coleman, 295 S.W.3d 857, 862 (Mo. banc 2009).

7. Kanye West could probably teach family law at least as well as an adjunct. See KANYE WEST FEAT. JAMIE FOXX, Gold Digger, on LATE REGISTRATION (Roc-A-Fella 2005) (“If you ain’t no punk, holla ‘We want pre-nup! We want pre-nup!’ Yeah, it’s something that you need to have, ’cause when she leaves yo’ ass she gon’ leave with half.”).

8. Ditto for Jay-Z and criminal procedure. See JAY-Z, 99 Problems, on THE BLACK ALBUM (Roc-A-Fella 2003) (“Well my glove compartment is locked, so is the trunk in the back, and I know my rights so you gon’ need a warrant for that.”).[FN1]

9. Some cases are simple. See Denny v. Radar Industries, Inc., 184 N.W.2d 289 (Mich. App. 1970).

10. Criminal defendants tend to be idiots. See State v. Gaw, 285 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Mo. banc 2009) (After approaching Gaw’s vehicle, “Sgt. Frazier asked Gaw to give him his marijuana. Gaw reached into his pants pocket, pulled out a small baggie and handed it to the officer.” Gaw was then arrested.).

11. The bar exam is a test of minimum competency. It’s also the source of the phrase “lowering the bar.” See Miller v. Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm’n, 287 S.W.3d 671, 674 (Mo. banc 2009) (dismissing a worker’s compensation claim because, among other things, the only case supporting the plaintiff’s interpretation of the statute had been overruled by name and citation in the statute).

12. The area between Missouri and Colorado known as “kansas” [FN2] is a black hole where knowledge, hygiene, and genetic diversity go to die. I know this has little to do with law school, but I did come to appreciate this fact while getting my J.D., and I wanted to include this picture:

13. People litigate some really bizarre stuff. See Tulare Irrigation Dist. v. Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation Dist., 45 P.2d 972, 1007 (Cal. 1935) (use of water by farmers to drown gophers not allowed in area with chronic water shortage).

14. Mark Twain once said, “In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards.” Boy was he right. See Justin D. Smith, Note, Hostile Takeover: The State of Missouri, the St. Louis School District, and the Struggle for Quality Education in the Inner-City, 74 MO. L. REV. 1143 (2009).

15. Some people don’t learn. Ever. See Glick v. Harris, 518 S.W.2d 227, 228 (Mo. App. W.D. 1974) (“We enter our judgment of dismissal of the appeals, but do not labor the reasons. Counsel for the appellants has had the benefit of our previous expressions and has felt the sanction of previous dismissals.”).

16. The Supreme Court of the United States only takes the biggest, most important questions facing our country. Like, “What is golf?” See PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 700 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

17. Some case names were just made to be mocked. See Bath Junkie Branson, L.L.C. v. Bath Junkie, Inc., 528 F.3d 556 (8th Cir. 2008).

I’m sure there are other nuggets of knowledge I’ve missed, but this is most of it. And it beats the hell out of watching that Contracts video instead.

—————————————

[FN1] This is actually how I memorized compartment searches for the exam.

[FN2] For those of you who are not die-hard Mizzou fans, know that the ‘k’ in ‘kansas’ is not capitalized because ‘kansas’ is not a proper noun. And if we had our way, it probably wouldn’t be a noun at all. See wikipedia.org/Lawrence_Massacre.

Judge Gold to take senior status in January

I remember when Judge Gold was sworn in -- I was clerking for Judge Davis at the time.  All of the clerks were invited to the ceremony, which back then was held in the old courtyard and catered by Christy's.  Judge Gold made a point of introducing himself to all of the clerks; he was very nice. 

He quickly became known as one of the best, most respected judges in this District.  Luckily, he intends "to continue to render substantial judicial service as a senior judge." Gold also wished Obama "well in these challenging times."

What I appreciate about him is that he holds lawyers to the highest standards.  He believes that the profession is a noble one.  I also appreciate that he writes a number of opinions, probably the most in this District.  From orders on motions to suppress to sentencing orders, Judge Gold often writes -- which is rare in criminal cases in this District.  Accordingly, the parties who appear before him -- win or lose -- know that he has given a great deal of consideration to their issues. 

From the DBR:  Gold, who sits in Miami, was nominated by President Clinton in 1997 when U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr. went on senior status. A graduate of Duke University law school, Gold served as a Miami-Dade prosecutor from 1971 to 1975 before going into private practice. He served as a Miami-Dade circuit judge from 1993 to 1997 before his nomination to the federal bench. *** The question is how long will it take to replace Gold. The Obama administration’s nominations have lagged in the U.S. Senate. U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in West Palm Beach took senior status in February 2009. Federal Defender Kathleen Williams was reported as the front-runner to replace him last December, and she is still awaiting confirmation.

Federal Sentencing Guidelines under attack by...

... Lindsay Lohan. 

She tweeted the following:

It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that...., "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." this was taken from an article by Erik Luna.. "November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission... Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years: Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."

Speaking of Federal Sentencing Guidelines -- Judge Cohn sentenced former Miramar Commissioner Fitzroy Salesman today to 51 months' imprisonment.  (Here's the Sun-Sentinel article).  The government had asked for 8-10 years.  In Judge Cohn's last big sentencing -- Scott Rothstein -- he went over the government's recommendation...  This time, he explained, Salesman's sentence should be in line with the other politicians caught in the scheme -- former School Board member Beverly Gallagher and former County Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion.  Sounds right. 

Pure Gold -- Uncle Luke's column in the New Times

In case you've missed it, Luther Campbell -- an original Miamian -- has been writing a column for the Miami New Times.  His last two are worth mentioning: 1.  "Elena Kagan helped 2 Live Crew and blacks so confirm her already" and 2. "Al Gore can get freaky now that Tipper's gone".

From the former, which references a case from the SDFLA:

In 1989, Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro banned the sale of our album, As Nasty as They Wanna Be, and a federal judge backed him. We appealed. The next year, Kagan, who was working at a Washington, D.C. law firm, wrote a brief that argued the album "does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response." In other words, my homegirl Kagan was saying people could not be aroused by the lyrics "'cause my dick's on bone" or "me so horny, me fuck you long time." She realized these words did not meet the standard of appealing to prurient interests. She did a great job fighting on 2 Live Crew's behalf, which lets you know that Kagan is not easily swayed by public opinion or by politicians with their own hidden agendas.

SDFLA Blog Turns 5

It's been 5 years since we started the blog.  I actually forgot this year to do our annual birthday post.  The blog was started on July 4 weekend in 2005.  Here's the initial post where I asked that a Floridian get appointed to the Supreme Court.  Once that happens, I can retire the blog... 

We've had over 1 million page views since then and over 640,000 unique visits.  As a birthday present, I'm trying to update the blog's appearance.  Bear with me for the next few days as I play around with the settings.  Thanks to you all for all the tips, visits, etc.  It's been a fun first five years.

Has the SDFLA become the new rocket docket?

The Eastern District of Virginia traditionally has been referred to as the "rocket docket" because of the speed in which it disposes of cases. There is even a EDVA blog called The Rocket Docket. Other districts -- like the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California -- have also been saddled with that moniker.

Criminal cases in these districts generally get tried within 70 days, absent extraordinary circumstances. And even then, the parties are lucky to get one short continuance.

This is not a good thing for criminal defendants, especially those charged with complicated document cases in which the government has been investigating for years. It puts them in a position of going to trial (where the deck is already quite stacked against them) without as much preparation as needed.

Unfortunately, our District is quickly moving toward "rocket docket" status, if we haven't achieved it already. We haven't gotten to the point where motions to continue are flat out denied, but recently, many judges in this District have started granting only very short continuances and saying that's it. Cases involving millions of documents are being forced to trial within a few months after indictment. One judge recently commented that a criminal defense attorney need not go through all of the documents because the client knows which ones are relevant.

There are still judges (I count 4 or 5) who will give the parties the time they need to prepare. But many others have hopped onto the idea that the way to go is to deny continuance requests.

I'm not really sure why the District has shifted so dramatically in recent years. I guess it forces more pleas and less trials. We have too few trials already, so this can't be a good thing for the justice system. Even though I think the policy generally hurts criminal defendants, I don't think prosecutors enjoy the rocket docket either.

What are your thoughts? Do we have a rocket docket here in South Florida? Is that a good thing?

Back to work...

...on a soggy Tuesday.

Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Some quick hits to start your week:

1. Rumpole is talking about the new drivers license cases.

2. SFL doesn't like the Herald's Kindle edition. But he does like the Kindle, as do I. I use it more for books than newspapers. My wife has the Ipad and as I'll take the Kindle for reading a book any day.

3. The Supreme Court is hearing lots of ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Martha Coyle has an interesting piece on the "revolution" that has started on these cases.

4. Teachers are protected from bottle rocket injuries to students.

5. Tony Mauro is discussing all the summary dispositions at the High Court this Term.

6. And for those keeping score (on a nice chart), David Frederick argued the most cases before the Supremes this Term.

I will check back soon with more.

Happy 4th

Thursday news and notes

1. Elena Kagan had another good day yesterday answering questions. Here's one funny exchange, where Senator Specter one-ups her:



2. The Herald reports here that the government actually sent an apology to Sergio Masvidal, who was represented by Joe DeMaria. He's the banker that the government and American Express agreed to blackball. It's a remarkable letter, which admits that the secret side-deal isn't DOJ policy:

Government apology to Sergio Masvidal

“Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.”

That was Elena Kagan yesterday at her confirmation hearings when asked where she was on Christmas day when a would-be terrorist was trying to blow up a plane over Detroit. (For more great quotes, see AboveTheLaw here).

Today is day 3. It's tough to watch the Senators drone on, but Kagan is doing a nice job. She's witty and professorial. It's interesting to compare her to Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor. Kagan is certainly Roberts' equal, although they have very different styles. Roberts came across as the quintessential appellate judge, while Kagan is the professor. Both get A's for their performances. Alito and Sotomayor also had similar performances but again much different styles.

The hearings seem to try and get candidates to explain how they will judge or what they think judging entails. Of course, the nominees try not to answer these questions. But you get a sense of the person by how they answer the questions. Kagan (like Roberts) comes across as bright, witty, and engaging -- and certainly qualified.

Skilling/Black ripple effects

The 11th Circuit gets to reconsider the cases of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and ex-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy. They were convicted of bribery and honest services fraud, which are now subject to attack because of the Skilling decision.

Monday morning (JPS edition)

1. Today is John Paul Stevens' last day on the Court. He has been a Justice for 35 years -- third longest ever on the Court. He took over for Justice Douglas -- interestingly, the longest serving Justice ever. At 90, he's also the second oldest serving Justice, behind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He'll retire to his home in Ft. Lauderdale.

2. The Court issued its last 4 opinions today, including Bilski! Lots of interesting stuff that I'll post about soon.

3. As Stevens steps down, Elena Kagan starts her confirmation hearings. Noah Feldman discusses the current state of the Court and the lack of progressives in this weekend's NY Times magazine.

4. Justice Ginsburg's husband, Martin, passed away yesterday. AboveTheLaw has a nice story about him.

5. In other news, the CJA lawyers had their seminar this weekend; Lew Freeman's sentencing was continued until July 23; and no more CocoDorm.

CJA Lawyers getaway

The District's Criminal Justice Act lawyers had their annual seminar in Naples. Chief Judge Moreno, Judge Cooke, and Judge O'Sullivan attended.

So did the U.S. Attorney, Willy Ferrer, and his second-in-command Ben Greenberg. Big shout out to Ferrer and Greenberg for coming -- they were the first USAO dynamic duo to ever accept an invite in the 13 years of doing this seminar. And they said all the right things.

1. Variances. Since Booker was decided, prosecutors still have mechanistically asked for guideline sentences. This was the mandate from the top -- the guidelines were always reasonable even though the Supreme Court made clear that this was not the case. In fact, the 11th Circuit has said again and again that there is no presumption that a guideline sentence was reasonable. No matter, prosecutors went in and always asked for a guideline sentence. Our district judges started complaining, and Ferrer and Greenberg said that their prosecutors will not simply ask for a guideline sentence in every case as that is unhelpful to the court.

2. Indictments and Plea Agreements. There have been a series of memos (from Thornburgh to Ashroft to Gonzalez) requiring that prosecutors charge defendants with the most serious charge they could bring (including 851 enhancements, etc) and requiring prosecutors to offer plea plea agreements only to the most serious charge in an indictment. The new Holder memo has changed all of that, and Ferrer & Greenberg said that they will make sure that the Holder memo gets implemented in their office ASAP. Although no specifics were really offered as the Holder memo is relatively new, they are studying how to make sure that there is "horizontal equity" (their term) and fairness.

3. Discovery. There are new memos on discovery obligations (including Brady/Giglio) as well. Ferrer & Greenberg said that all prosecutors are undergoing training to learn about these memos and their discovery obligations in general. Although many line prosecutors are still telling the defense bar that they are only required to disclose what is required under Rule 16, Ferrer & Greenberg assured the CJA lawyers that this was going to change under their watch.

So, there you have it -- they said all the right things. Now we'll see what happens. After they left, most of the lawyers were grumbling that they hadn't seen any change so far. No prosecutors were asking for variances and no one had seen any open file discovery. But Ferrer made clear that he's only been there a month and that it would take some time to get all of these changes in place and the prosecutors trained on these changes. It was a great sign that they accepted the invitation to come speak to the group.

No Bliski yet

But the High Court did decide the honest services cases and found that the statute only covers bribes and kickbacks. Jeff Skilling and Conrad Black have to go fight about harmless error in the appellate courts now.

Interestingly (take note Rumpole), the Court did not strike down the statute as vague. But Scalia (along with Thomas and Kennedy) adopted the position of the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, and wrote that the statute should be thrown out altogether.

Today’s Supreme Court Opinions on honest services fraud:

Skilling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1394.pdf

Black: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-876.pdf

Weyhrauch: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1196.pdf

How much time should Lew Freeman get?

Update: I've been told that the govt is asking for at least 15 years; probation 12.5; and the defense 7.5. Not confirmed.

Judge Huck is set to sentence him on Friday.

Joe DeMaria filed this sentencing memo on Freeman's behalf on Monday. It's an interesting contrast to the memo filed for Scott Rothstein, especially in tone. Also of note is that Freeman still seems to have the support of the community -- 277 letters were filed on his behalf. The biggest difference, of course, is the loss; here it's somewhere in the millions, not the billions.

I believe that the probation office calculated the guidelines at 78-87 months based on a high loss calculation, but the parties will be fighting over loss. The maximum sentence is 20 years.

What sentence will Lew Freeman receive from Judge Huck
	5 years or less.
	A guidelines sentence of 78-87 months (as calculated by probation).
	10 years.
	The max -- 20 years.
pollcode.com free polls

Here is the sentencing memo:

Lewis Freeman Sentencing Memorandum

John Pacenti's article on the upcoming sentencing is here.

It's official --

-- Jonathan Goodman is now a magistrate judge. The background check is over and JG is good to go. Congrats!

But, we're still waiting for the White House to nominate Kathy Williams. What is taking so long? It's just ridiculous. Obama has really failed so far with the federal judiciary. Here's the latest article by msnbc.com:

Democrats control the White House and have the largest congressional majorities enjoyed by a chief executive in decades. But President Barack Obama isn't off to a brisk pace when it comes to putting his imprint on the third branch of government — the federal courts — and some of his allies are disappointed, particularly with the prospect of a slimmed-down Senate majority after the midterm elections.

At the highest level, the Supreme Court, Obama is already having a major impact. His first nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, was confirmed to the high court last year and his second, Elena Kagan, seems well on her way to confirmation. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, did not get his second (and final) justice until 2006, six years into his presidency.

But the vast majority of federal cases never reach the high court; they are decided by appeals court judges, making appointments to that level crucial to determining a president's judicial legacy.

The Senate has confirmed nine of Obama’s 21 appeals court nominees. That compares with eight out of 30 appeals court nominees confirmed for Bush at the same point in his first term as president.

But unlike Bush, Obama was elected with a majority of the popular vote and works with a Senate in which his party has 59 senators — at least for now.

“You’d expect President Obama, elected with a comfortable margin and with the number of Democratic senators there now are, to have had a lot more judges confirmed by now,” said Russell Wheeler, former deputy director of the Federal Judicial Center, the research agency for the federal courts. Wheeler is a fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Eleven prominent liberal law professors complained to Obama in an open letter in February that “your Administration must act with far more energy and dispatch in the vitally important task of nominating and confirming federal judges.”

Satellite U.S. Attorney's office

The Ferraro Law Firm is hiring -- and its hiring federal prosecutors. Jeff Sloman, the former U.S. Attorney, joined the firm, as did Alan Kaiser. Two more well-regarded prosecutors are set to join next month -- Melissa Damian and Russell Koonin.

The firm is known for asbestos litigation, and the website says in bold on the first page: "We have helped more than 20,000 people recover over approximately $ 1 billion dollars in asbestos and mesothelioma lawsuits." That's billion with a B:



In other news, lots of summer not guilty verdicts -- in addition to the cops last week, Jan Smith and Christy O'Connor also notched an NG...

A bunch of SCOTUS opinions due out shortly. Stay tuned.

NGs for the cops on trial before Judge Middlebrooks

Across the board not guilty verdicts today for the three police officers charged with perjury before Judge Middlebrooks. Richard Sharpstein was at his finest with the following quotes (via the Miami Herald):

• A triumph for truth, justice and the American way,'' Farraj's defense attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said Thursday. "Our clients are grateful for a true verdict by a great and dedicated jury.''
• "I've got bad news for you. There is no Superman. There is no Batman. That was George Clooney in a suit. Those weren't even his real abs,'' Sharpstein told jurors. "I'll tell you who the real crime fighters are: these gentleman sitting here in court.''
• Sharpstein blamed the twisted facts of the traffic stop on a rookie federal prosecutor, ... who "freaked out'' during his first court case and botched the case. "You always remember your first time and sometimes you remember it with a little pain and a lot of regret,'' Sharpstein said.

Beat LA (and Rumpole)

Running around like crazy the last few days, and then I see this straw man put up and knocked down by Rumpole on his blog. I will respond when I have a minute.

In the meantime, let me say that I obviously do not agree with Scalia's dissent in Holland, and I have not taken the position that Scalia is friendly to criminal defendants -- what I have said is that Scalia is the best friend that criminal defendants have on the Supreme Court (here's one of the first posts that got the debate started). That's not such high praise when the voting patterns of this Court are examined.

Anyway, more on this later when I have time to respond, and congrats to Todd Scher for the big victory.

Here are the 5 opinions that were decided today.

My first call for impeachment

Questions to ponder

I know, I know -- you're bored without Lost, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, 24, and Glee. At least there's Friday Night Lights, and True Blood just came back. And football is just around the corner. While you wait, here are some questions to think about this Monday night:

1. Was Justice Souter right? John McGinnis and Michael Rapparort think no way.

2. Should Clarence Thomas run for President in 2012? Kashmir Hill and David Lat say yes!

3. Should state judges be permitted to affiliate with a political party? Yes, says the 7th Circuit. Here's the opinion. (Should we expect a similar Florida lawsuit soon?) The 7th Circuit did say that state judges could not endorse political candidates or directly solicit for cash, just like here in Florida.

Supreme Court to issue many opinions today

There are 24 pending cases and not much time left -- the Court closes down at the end of June. It has issued a whopping 53 opinions this year... (It's unbelievable how few cases the modern Supreme Court hears).

The Court will be issuing a number of opinions today. I am running around this morning, but check in at ScotusBlog at 10am (they will have a live feed) for the list of opinions and then we can talk about them this afternoon.

UPDATE -- Only 4 decisions decided today. From ScotusBlog:


In Dolan v. United States (09-367), the Court affirms, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The vote is 5-4, with a dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.

Holding: A sentencing court that has missed the 90-day deadline may nevertheless order restitution, at least in some circumstances.
In Holland v. Florida (09-5327), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Breyer. The vote is 7-2. Justice Alito concurs in part and in the judgment, while Justice Scalia dissents, joined in part by Justice Thomas.

Holding: The Court permits equitable tolling of the habeas corpus filing deadline under the AEDPA.
In Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The vote is unanimous, but Justice Sotomayor files a concurrence joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.

Holding: An individual who wins a case against the federal government and recovers attorney’s fees can have those offset if that individual owes a debt to the government.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), the Court reverses, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous, though Justices Scalia and Thomas each file opinions concurring in the judgment only.

Holding: Second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.

Judge Middlebrooks excludes Judge Altonaga

More fun in the cop perjury trial that I just posted about below. Judge Middlebrooks granted the defense "Motion in Limine to Exclude Federal District Judge Cecilia Altonaga."

The government wanted to call Judge Altonaga to demonstrate that the police officers' testimony was material to the suppresion hearing. Judge Middlebrooks found that Judge Altonaga's proposed testimony would violate Rule 403 as a jury would give too much credence to a district judge's testimony.

Here's the entire order:Judge Middle Brooks Excludes Judge Altonaga

Too bad, I would have gone to see Richard Sharpstein cross-examine Judge Altonaga...

"When something uncanny, accidental and unexpected happens."

That's the definition of coincidence.

There was a pretty incredible one today in Judge Middlebrooks' courtroom.

It was jury selection for the cops who were charged with perjury in connection with a Judge Altonaga case. They were charged with lying about AFPD D'Arsey Houlihan's client last year. Well, who was called for jury duty today before Judge Middlebrooks? Mr. Houlihan was. He sat in the box for a bit before the parties realized who he was. Needless to say, he wasn't picked for jury service...

Justice Souter on judging

Judging is a really hard and truly human exercise. Judges definitely are not umpires, according to Justice Souter. Here are his remarks at the Harvard commencement. Here are his closing remarks:

So, it is tempting to dismiss the critical rhetoric of lawmaking and activism as simply a rejection of too many of the hopes we profess to share as the American people. But there is one thing more. I have to believe that something deeper is involved, and that behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, or years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings for certainty, which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.
But I have come to understand that he was right, and by the same token I understand that I differ from the critics I’ve described not merely in seeing the patent wisdom of the Brown decision, or in espousing the rule excluding unlawfully seized evidence, or in understanding the scope of habeas corpus. Where I suspect we differ most fundamentally is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.
That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting take on the speech here:

It's surely too much to ask that the modern confirmation process explore the complex work of balancing, in Justice Souter's recent words, a reliance on "reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people." The very notion that we could trust anyone to do all that is too frightening to contemplate. But could we at least ask that the nominee, and the senators, decline to insult our collective intelligence with the suggestion that judging is so easy, and the Constitution so crystal clear, that a second-year associate could do it.
It saddens me to think that it took Justice Souter 19 years of heavy constitutional lifting and departure from the court before he could turn to the American people and explain clearly that much as we might want judging to be easy, it never can be. It terrifies me even more to think that we've crafted a confirmation process in which the consistent message is that judging is so simple that any old bozo can do it. If we continue to believe that this is so, we will be on the road to confirming any old bozo that stumbles along.

It's 50 years...

...for Scott Rothstein.

More to follow.

Update #1 -- From the Sun-Sentinel article:

In the courtroom, Rothstein appeared visibly and dramatically changed by his six months in federal custody, much thinner with closely shorn gray hair and a goatee -- almost unrecognizable from the outsize personality he once was.He was wearing dark pants and an off-white dress shirt, and he was shackled at the waist and ankles. A humble Rothstein addressed the judge and the packed gallery, apologizing for all the harm he caused."I am truly and deeply sorry for what I have done. I don't expect your forgiveness. I don't," Rothstein said. "I am ashamed and embarrassed."

Update #2 -- More from Bob Norman, who was there. The post is excellent and worth a read. Here's a lengthy excerpt:

Rothstein looked like he'd lost a good 30 pounds. His hair was grayer still and he wore a goattee. He actually looked tanned and healthy in a long-sleeve white button-up shirt, dark pants, white socks, black sneakers and the chains shackling him.
His wife, Kim, sat in the second row behind him, and wept when Rothstein entered the courtroom. She sat next with her friend, Stacy Weissman at her left, and Scott's father Harvey at her right. Next to Harvey was Scott's sister, Ronni, and next to her was mother Gay. Also in the row was Kim's attorney, Scott Saidel, who sat next to Weissman.
Cohn opened the proceedings by asking if any of Rothstein's victims were present in the courtroom who wanted to speak. In the back row, a black woman stood up and said she'd like to speak. It was Shirley Blades, the mother (I think) of Charles Blades, from the Blades football family.
In what was a bit of a dramatic moment, she was led up to the podium and Cohn let her speak even though she was there to show Rothstein moral support. She simply turned to Rothstein, with tears streaming down her face, and said, "My brother, may God bless you. May God bless you."
That prompted Gay, Ronni, and Kim all to start crying. Blades was followed by Steven Bitton, a Plantation man who was a client of Rothstein's. He said that he was offered a settlement in a lawsuit with the City of Plantation that Rothstein simply never told him about (outside the courtroom he said the offer was for $650,000 and that the city was now claiming was no longer on the table and that the statute of limitations had passed). "I went to see him every month for four years," said Bitton. "... You trust your attorney. You put your faith in him. ... It's not just the investors [who were hurt]."
Then Nurik took the stage and spoke for over an hour on behalf of Rothstein. He started by asking Cohn to focus on "the rule of law, not the rule of mob, not the influence of the media, not the frenzy."
He asked Cohn to sentence Rothstein for "who he is, not for how he's been demonized." He said Rothstein, who turns 48 tomorrow, had lived 43 years as a "caring, loving person" before he turned to a like of crime.
Nurik also said that nobody would come to speak on his behalf -- expect Blades, whom he said was a surprise even to him -- for "fear of vilification ... and demonization" by the media and community.
Cohn asked Nurik why he thought Rothstein "engendered so much public attention."
"Mr. Rothstein lived larger than life," Nurik answered. "Mr. Rothstein was very brash, very vocal ... his face was plastered on every society page ... he was everywhere, doing everything."
Nurik continued that there was a lot "schadenfreude" in this case -- joy in the demise of another -- and that law firms and lawyers in town were "quite frankly jealous ... a lot of lawyers wondered how [RRA] could grows so fast."
"Isn't his lifestyle part of the manner in which the crimes were committed?" asked Cohn.
Nurik said it was "to some degree," specifically in terms of the political contributions and "certain things in town" (I assume he was talking about charity events) that he did to gain "access to certain people."

***

Then, finally, Cohn spoke. And man did he speak. He waxed poetic about Rothstein's case, saying it was "all about image, wealth, power, and influence" and that Rothstein rivaled "Madison Avenue" in the way he marketed himself.
"[Rothstein's] political connections stretch from the sheriff's office on one end of Broward Boulevard all the way to the Fort Lauderdale Police Department on the other end of Broward Boulevard to the governor's mansion in Tallahassee ... and down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House," Cohn said.
Cohn mentioned the society pages, the political contributions "funneled through Rothstein's attorneys and their wives," his attending sporting events "with BSO brass," all designed to create an "appearance of legitimacy but we now know was all a facade, a fraud.
"This was a This Ponzi scheme was not the result of a poor buisness decision. Quite the contrary, it was fraud at its inception ... causing 400 investors to love $400 million ... many people have been swept up in the tsunami that followed." Cohn not suprisingly said that he believed Nurik's comparison to the Dreier case was "unpersuasive" saying that there could be "no conduct more reviled" thatn Rothstein's forging of court orders.
"The court must take a step back and ask what makes the Rothstein case different," Cohn said. "Why has this case created such a media frenzy? ... I think the primary reason is that Mr. Rothstein infiltrated so many spheres of our daily life ... politics, sports, charities, the society pages, the legal profession, billboards. Mr. Rothstein was seemingly omnipotent. He was everywhere. He was not only everywhere, but everywhere with excess."
Just before he handed down the 50-year sentence (followed by three years of supervised release), Cohn said he felt that "public perception" was important.
While his mother wept, Rothstein didn't give a visible reaction. When Cohn was finished, he was led out of the courtroom through a side door. He didn't look back.

How much time will Rothstein get?

We asked that question in our poll here. Most readers are saying that he will get between 40 and 50 years.

The Sun-Sentinel has followed suit in its own poll. Other lawyers have weighed in this article. Here are the results of their poll as I write this post:

Poll: How much time should he get?
Convicted Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein will be sentenced Wednesday, June 9, in federal court. His lawyer has made a case for Rothstein to serve no more than 30 years. The prosecution has asked that the former high-flying Fort Lauderdale lawyer get 40 years in prison.

What do you think? How much time should Scott Rothstein serve?

10 years or fewer. He didn't have any real victims. (66 responses)
8%

30 years. His lawyer made a good argument. (84 responses)
11%

40 years. The prosecution made a good argument. (216 responses)
27%

100 years or more. He should not see the light of day. (344 responses)
43%

Any prison time would be too good for him. He should be waterboarded and flogged for the rest of his life. (83 responses)
10%

793 total responses
(Results not scientific)

My view of this is that it doesn't much matter because the big sentencing date will be the day Judge Cohn hears the Rule 35 motion, the motion to reduce Scott Rothstein's sentence. True, whatever Rothstein gets tomorrow will be the starting point for the reduction, but at the end of the day, the amount of cooperation credit will drive this sentence. Judge Cohn knows that he will have the discretion to sentence Rothstein to an appropriate sentence after the cooperation motion comes, so I expect a pretty high sentence tomorrow. That said, 30 years is a lot of time, and as I've said before, I'm surprised that Nurik didn't ask for less.

Monday news and notes

1. The government has asked Judge Cohn to sentence Scott Rothstein to 40 years, a (meaningless?) variance from the statutory maximum of 100 years. (pg. 2: "The Government concedes that a variance in this case is supported by several salient factors. While the Defendant’s criminal activity in this case can only be described as reprehensible, it is beyond dispute that his post-offense conduct has been extraordinary.")

I say meaningless because 40 years is basically a life sentence for 48-year old Rothstein. It may turn out to be important what Judge Cohn does though because a motion to reduce Rothstein's sentence will be coming, so the starting point will be important. If Rothstein gets 30 years this week, and then gets a third off, he will likely have something to look forward to...
Govt Response to Rothstein

2. Nice story on Willy Ferrer today by John Pacenti.

3. The Supremes decided Krupski today. Our prior coverage here. This is the relation-back case that Robert Glazier argued. Unfortunately for Mr. Glazier, he was on the wrong side of this one.

Scott Rothstein asks Judge Cohn for 30 years...

...and I'm a bit surprised. I thought he'd ask for less. The PSI calls for life (a level 52), but the statutory maximum is 100 years. Rothstein will be 48 the day after his sentencing this week.

Here's his sentencing memo (by Mark Nurik):

Rothstein Sentencing Memo Rothstein himself wrote a 12-page letter to Judge Cohn, asking for leniency, "[b]ut I do not feel sorry for myself nor do I want anyone's sympathy. I deserve and expect the punishment I will receive. What I am deeply and sincerely sorry for is the horrific pain and harm I have inflicted on so many people."

There were also some letters filed on his behalf, one by his parents, but missing was one from his wife Kim Rothstein.

So here you go readers:

What will Judge Cohn sentence Scott Rothstein to this week?
	30 years
	35-40 years
	40-50 years
	100 years, the stat max
pollcode.com free polls

Summer time

Professor Rick is finished grading his exams, and is back to blogging. His latest -- on the most recent Supreme Court Miranda case -- is hilarious. Go check it out.

11th Circuit issues 112 opinion reversing one of its own

The case is United States v. Farley, and I confess that I haven't read the whole thing yet. What struck me is that the court reverses Judge Beverly Martin, the newest member of the 11th Circuit, in an opinion she wrote as a district judge. She held at the district level that a 30-year min/man sentence was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual. The 11th Circuit, per Judge Carnes, reversed. This case might have legs to the Supremes...

Quick news and notes

1. Former Broward School Board member Beverly Gallagher gets 37 months in prison. That was the agreed-to sentence. Here's the Sun-Sentinel article.

2. A bodyguard in the Scott Rothstein case pleads guilty. Here's the Herald article:

A Broward County bodyguard pleaded guilty to conspiring to shred financial records at the behest of Scott Rothstein as the Fort Lauderdale lawyer's $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme was collapsing last fall.
Enrique Ros, who came to know Rothstein through security work at the former Versace mansion in South Beach, is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 27 on an obstruction of justice charge in Fort Lauderdale federal court.
Ros, 33, of Pembroke Pines, was indicted in March along with business partner Daniel Dromerhauser and reputed Italian Mafia figure Roberto Settineri following an FBI sting operation starring Rothstein. The now-convicted lawyer, facing the heat of a federal investigation into his investment racket, played the lead role as the FBI targeted Settineri and the two businessmen in November.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.

“Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”

That's the question that Van Chester Thompkins was asked after 3 hours of questioning in which he remained silent. Thompkins said yes and the statement was used to convict him. The Supreme Court held 5-4 that staying quiet for 3 hours wasn't enough to invoke one's right to remain silent. From the NYTimes:

Criminal suspects seeking to protect their right to remain silent must speak up to invoke it, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, refining the court’s landmark 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that split along familiar ideological lines, did not disturb Miranda’s requirement that suspects be told they have the right to remain silent. But he said courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received such warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her first major dissent, said the decision “turns Miranda upside down” and “bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.”
Monday’s decision followed two in February that also narrowed and clarified the scope of the Miranda decision. One allowed police officers to vary the wording of the warning; the other allowed a second round of questioning of suspects who had invoked their rights so long as two weeks had passed since their release from custody.

At least the cops offered him a mint:

Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.

While the Supremes are chipping away at Miranda, I see that the 11th reversed a conviction yesterday on a suppression issue. Richard Klugh won the case, United States v. Lance Lall.

Sun-Sentinel profiles Judge Jimmy Cohn

Paula McMahon does a very nice job here, describing him as "a true Southern gentleman" and "tough but fair." He's being profiled because he's got three huge sentencings coming up -- Scott Rothstein, Beverly Gallagher, and Fitzroy Salesman. Judge Cohn did what more judges should do and agreed to be interviewed for the article...

Some highlights from McMahon's article:

• Cohn, 61, is a lifelong Democrat nominated to the federal judiciary in 2003 by Republican President George W. Bush and confirmed 96-0 by a Republican-dominated Senate during a bitterly partisan era. His confirmation hearing was described by the Sun Sentinel as "a striking display of harmony in a contentious arena" but Cohn said that, as a Democrat selected by a Republican president, he was unlikely to face opposition.
• Growing up in Tuskegee, Ala., during the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s, the Cohns owned a store and were one of two Jewish families in town. There was no synagogue so Cohn, his parents and his two sisters drove 40 miles west to the Reform temple in Montgomery for religious classes. "The worst part of it was I missed the first half of the NFL game," Cohn said wryly.
• "You want to assimilate, you don't want to be different, no kid wants to be different," Cohn said. "On the other hand, you want to maintain your Jewish heritage and traditions."For Cohn, playing sports was the best way to fit in. He was a quarterback on the Tuskegee High School football team, an all-star second baseman in baseball, ran track and played basketball.
• After passing his bar exams in Alabama and Florida, his sister and parents, who retired to South Florida, persuaded him to interview here. After a brief stint as a Broward public defender, then State Attorney Philip Shaler offered him a $1,000 raise — to $13,000 — to be a prosecutor. Cohn prosecuted cases from 1975 to 1978, working with two men who are still his friends, current State Attorney Mike Satz and defense attorney Richard Garfield.
• Jurors trusted his sincerity and people at the county courthouse still talk about how he won a "not guilty by reason of insanity" jury verdict on a first-degree murder case — a difficult feat under Florida's restrictive law. The defendant, Robert Lee Endicott shot and killed a young woman in Fort Lauderdale in 1979. Endicott is still involuntarily committed 30 years later.
• He awakes at 5 a.m., doesn't use an alarm clock and has never overslept in his life. He's at the gym by 5:30 a.m. and goes to bed by 9 or 9:30 p.m. "unless there's a ball game."

There's a whole lot more, including how Judge Cohn overcame a stutter in the ninth grade, the adoption of his son, how he tried 144 cases one year as a state judge (second place only to Judge Dimitrouleas), watching Seinfeld reruns, loving Alabama, and other gems.

The article is definitely worth a read.

Judge Davis' memorial service

It was a real tribute. So many friends, colleagues, judges, family turned out to pay their respects. Judge Graham spoke beautifully about Judge Davis, as did Ned Davis (the judge's son). We all shared stories about him over drinks, as he would have liked.

Chief Judge Moreno was in Europe and sent this email regarding Judge Davis:

He was a great man and a good friend. I tried cases before him and found him to be the perfect example of a judge I should emulate but whose qualities of patience,fairness and moderation I could never attain. The 10 years we were colleagues were an incredible experience that made him my best friend on the court. When I became Chief we continued our friendship lunching at Abbracci often where I welcomed his sage advice. What a great human being. I consider this loss like losing a second father within 2 months, as I lost my dad in March. I have been in Europe for the last two weeks and do not return until after the funeral. Please explain my absence at the Biltmore to Pat Davis as well as those others (past law clerks,AUSAs, FPDs, private lawyers) personally or even through your blog.Have fun on Thursday and toast to him as that is what Ned would want all of us to do. FAM

Judge Altonaga remembers Judge Davis

There are so many great comments about Judge Davis that were posted, but I thought I'd share with everyone on the front page, this letter from Judge Altonaga:

May 27, 2010

Dear David:

On Monday, May 24, 2010, you shared the story of U.S. District Judge Edward B. Davis, following his passing as a result of complications from open-heart surgery. I write you this letter in the event you would like to share some of my thoughts in the Southern District of Florida Blog.
I had the extraordinary good fortune of being hired by Judge Davis to be his February term law clerk, or "even" clerk as we were known, and worked for him in 1987. Since then, he has been my mentor, advisor, and kindest of friends. Words cannot describe the goodness and compassion of the man or his depth and integrity. Among the counsel and advice he would give his young law clerks or young lawyers as he would call us, was not to be "mean." I don’t believe Judge Davis had a mean bone in his body. Over the last 24 years I have never seen him angry at or impatient with anyone.

Judge Davis was always thoughtful and generous. I remember one time when he offered then-U.S. District Judge Stanley Marcus to share his office and chambers when the Dyer Courthouse was closed for asbestos removal. We shared chambers for several months with Judge Marcus and his law clerks, and while space was tight, the mood was always light and welcoming. On another occasion, when the late Senior Judge Joe Eaton had need of a law clerk for a particular assignment, Judge Davis asked me if I would mind being on loan to Judge Eaton to help him with that assignment, and proceeded to share me with Judge Eaton.

I clerked for Judge Davis during the days when memory typewriters and word processors were all the tools we had and files were brimming over with paper. The Judge would be in the courtroom every day with trials and all manner of hearings. It was his custom to bring in lawyers after the trials and talk to them privately, giving them encouragement and advice on trial practice. In the late afternoons, the chambers was filled with the sound of his laughter and that of the late Judge Eugene Spellman, for they were good friends and at the end of the day Judge Spellman would come to the Judge’s office where stories were shared and a moment of relaxation seized. When the Judge hired us, he would make clear the work day started at 8:00 a.m. and we were to stay with him until he left, which was usually after 7:00 p.m. He worked very hard, and while we all did as well, it was without undue pressure. Certainly I never felt any pressure from him; he always gave assurances that it would all work out.

Whenever I had occasion to travel with the Judge to Key West for trials, he and his wife Pat would include me in their dinners at the end of the work days. In keeping with the Judge’s casual and informal manner, the Courtroom Deputy, Michael Beck, and I would join the Judge and his wife in their hotel room, and from there we would all go together to share a meal.
I, along with countless of his law clerks, have had the extraordinary good fortune of having been offered the opportunity to share Judge Davis. We each became a part of the Judge’s family, so much so, that when after one reunion he sent me a copy of a group picture and signed it, "To Cecilia, my favorite law clerk and judge," I believed it. I came to discover later that he signed copies of the picture in the same way for each of his law clerks, letting each know he or she was his "favorite!" That picture, and another of the two of us in his chambers so many years ago, rests beside my computer where I am reminded daily of the "gentle giant" who has had such an impact on my life.

Judge Davis was my source of inspiration and I credit him with my desire to become a judge. He administered my oath as judge on three separate occasions, the last of which was as a federal district judge. When I joined the Southern District of Florida in 2003, I was humbled to occupy his former office and courtroom.

Judge Davis was the face of kindness, fairness and compassion in our court. May God bless and keep him.

Sincerely,

Cecilia M. Altonaga

RIP Judge Edward B. Davis (w/ updates)

UPDATE -- A public remembrance will be held from 5 p.m.-7 p.m. on Thursday in the Biltmore Hotel's Grenada Ballroom, 1200 Anastasia Ave., Coral Gables. In lieu of flowers, the family suggests memorial donations to La Amistad Foundation, Inc., 8400 La Amistad Cove, Fern Park, FL 32730. The foundation supports a community for mentally ill adults. Burial will be private.

UPDATE 2 -- Full Herald obit here.

Update 3 -- DBR article here.

Update 4 -- If you haven't read the comments, you should. There are some great stories about Judge Davis. Also, the Herald published a beautiful (and much longer) story here than the one that was online yesterday about Judge Davis.

Update 5 -- For those of you who were going to Jeff Sloman's going away party tomorrow night, it was changed to 7pm so that it wouldn't conflict with Judge Davis' memorial.

It is with great sadness that I report that Judge Edward B. Davis passed away today. I will post funeral arrangements as soon as I hear about them.

He was -- for a long long time -- the heart and soul of this District. He was old-school in every way.

My clerkship with the Chief was the best job I've ever had. Judge Davis really thought of the District as a small family, and I thank him for bringing me into it. He was the prototypical federal judge and really as good a person there could be. If you were thinking of how to make the perfect judge, Edward Davis would be the starting point. Lawyers practicing before him loved him even when they lost because they knew they were getting a fair shake and knew that they would get treated with respect. He's one of the last of the old guard of the District...

He led such a full life -- from his family to athletics to his career as a lawyer and then as a judge and then back to practicing. He knew how to balance all the different things we are always struggling to juggle. He also knew how to eat well, drink well, and laugh well.

Judges, practitioners, and friends, please post your stories and memories about Judge Davis in the comments. I will probably leave this up for the rest of the week.

I have so many great stories and memories; I'll share a couple of them here that are coming to mind:

-- During one trial, a prosecutor complained that he worked all weekend updating transcripts and he couldn't get in touch with the defense attorney, who the prosecutor said, was at a Heat game. Judge Davis replied: "I was at that game too."

-- When he introduced us law clerks to other lawyers or judges in town, he would always say, "This is my lawyer."

-- I will always remember Friday afternoon scotch with him where we talked about the week -- trials, hearings, orders we were working on, and what was going on next week. He had this calm to him that rubbed off on all of us.

-- Heat tickets in his shirt pocket.

-- Telling us not to worry about moving cases quickly or the case-load stats or getting reversed by the 11th Circuit. He always said to take your time to make sure it was done right. He never really understood why a lifetime appointee cared about whether he or she was first in the case-load summary statistics.

-- Chambers with Mary and Michael.

-- Asking why he couldn't figure out email and telling us not to be smart when we told him that he needed to plug his computer in (really!) before email would work.

-- Writing "to my favorite law clerk" to each one of his clerks on the clerk reunion photos that were handed out.

-- Ned.

-- Gentleman.

-- Fair.

-- Just.

-- A man's man.

Rest in peace Judge.

Monday morning Lost edition

Is everyone still deciphering last night's 2 1/2 hour Lost finale? I really liked it, and give it a solid B+. One of the great shows in the history of TV was the Lost Season I finale when they took Walt (there's the scene below). The show never really lived up to that moment, but it was still very good after that. I enjoyed how Jack had to fix the island and then how it was Hurley's turn to nurture/protect it. Plus, the purgatory twist in the Sideways world was cool. All in all, a good way to end the show.



Back to business -- John Pacenti is all over social networking and lawyering this morning. He references the 11th Circuit opinion we wrote about here. And yours truly is quoted. Here's a piece:

Social media issues have been litigated on claims of defamation, copyright infringement or violation of free speech, and platforms such as MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare and others have become a vital investigative tool for some attorneys. “There is a lot of stuff out there that is totally irrelevant, but every now and then there is a gem, and it’s well worth mining for,” said Richard Sharpstein with Jorden Burt in Miami. “Most lawyers feel it’s an important source of information.” Bob Jarvis, a law professor at the Nova Southeastern University’s Shepard Broad Law Center, said social-networking sites are fair game for any prosecutor or defense attorney. “It’s really no different than a 19th century diary. It’s a person’s thoughts expressed prior to the time of litigation,” Jarvis said.

Miss me yet?

The Rekers scandal has reached the New York Times. The article raises the question of whether the lawyers who relied on Rekers' testimony as an expert witness have an ethical obligation to inform the court of what happened.

Do Rekers' lawyers have an obligation to inform the court of his scandal?
	Yes
	No
pollcode.com free polls

Okay, we are in a poll taking mood. Here's two more while we are at it:

Will Willy Ferrer and his new management staff change the way things are done at the U.S. Attorney's office?
	Yes, there will be a great deal of change
	Yes, but only minor changes
	Nothing significant will change
	There will be no change
pollcode.com free polls

And we'd like to see what you think about Rumpole's discussion of Graham:

Who got the better of the Graham argument re life for juveniles
	Justice Kennedy's majority opinion was correct and its reasoning was persuasive
	Justice Kennedy's opinion was correct but his reasoning was flawed
	Justice Thomas' dissent was right and its reasoning was persuasive
	Justice Thomas' reasoning was more persuasive but his conclusion was wrong
pollcode.com free polls