Bob Norman has this piece up today about a Broward County Commission who is afraid of bloggers. It's easy to poke fun at some of the dramatic comments she makes.
But, I actually think Norman makes light of what is a more serious issue -- anonymous commenting on blogs. Rumpole and I have discussed it and dealt with it in our own ways, but it's not an easy problem. The anonymity of commenting makes for (unnecessarily) hurtful speech, and oftentimes takes over the blog itself. I haven't found a good solution for this yet. Currently, I moderate comments, but it makes it difficult for a good dialogue to occur in the comments...

The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Quick hits
1. How do you prosecute a defendant who is deaf, mute, and illiterate, including no known knowledge of sign language? They are trying.
2. Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch are ATL's lawyers of the year. Who, you say? Read about em here.
3. Justice Kagan wrote her first opinion, an 8-1 ruling for credit card companies.
4. F. Lee Bailey says he can prove OJ's innocence. I'm not sure it matters much; OJ is in jail for the next 33 years in Nevada.
5. The 11th Circuit is sleeping in this morning:
Inclement Weather
The Court of Appeals and all administrative offices in Atlanta will be operating on Wednesday, January 12, 2011. Employees are asked to report for duty no later than 10:30 a.m. Those employees who believe that they cannot safely arrive for work by that time should follow normal procedures to request annual leave, which will be granted liberally.
2. Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch are ATL's lawyers of the year. Who, you say? Read about em here.
3. Justice Kagan wrote her first opinion, an 8-1 ruling for credit card companies.
4. F. Lee Bailey says he can prove OJ's innocence. I'm not sure it matters much; OJ is in jail for the next 33 years in Nevada.
5. The 11th Circuit is sleeping in this morning:
Inclement Weather
The Court of Appeals and all administrative offices in Atlanta will be operating on Wednesday, January 12, 2011. Employees are asked to report for duty no later than 10:30 a.m. Those employees who believe that they cannot safely arrive for work by that time should follow normal procedures to request annual leave, which will be granted liberally.
Monday, January 10, 2011
11th Circuit in Atlanta is closed today
It's cold there. From the Court's website:
Inclement Weather
Court of Appeals employees should not report for duty at the Tuttle or Godbold Buildings in Atlanta on Monday, January 10, 2011, unless they are specifically directed to do so by a supervisor.
It's a beautiful day in Miami today. Outside the Ferguson Courthouse this morning, there was the swearing in of all the new representatives. Everyone who spoke mentioned John M. Roll and the other victims who died in the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, and wished a complete and speedy recovery to Representative Gabrielle Giffords. In addition, Chief Judge Moreno gave a nice shout out to Kathy Williams and urged the new reps to get her confirmed. Well done Chief.
Inclement Weather
Court of Appeals employees should not report for duty at the Tuttle or Godbold Buildings in Atlanta on Monday, January 10, 2011, unless they are specifically directed to do so by a supervisor.
It's a beautiful day in Miami today. Outside the Ferguson Courthouse this morning, there was the swearing in of all the new representatives. Everyone who spoke mentioned John M. Roll and the other victims who died in the tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, and wished a complete and speedy recovery to Representative Gabrielle Giffords. In addition, Chief Judge Moreno gave a nice shout out to Kathy Williams and urged the new reps to get her confirmed. Well done Chief.
The most hated lawyer in America right now is...
... Judy Clarke, who is going to represent Jared Loughner, who is charged with murdering Chief Federal Judge John M. Roll and others, and attempting to kill Representative Giffords.
She has been the most hated lawyer before, representing the Unabomber, Susan Smith, and Zacarias Moussaoui. She may be the most hated, but she's the reason our system works. What would happen if no lawyer would agree to represent Loughner?
In any event, TalkLeft has an excellent write-up on her:
They don't make defense lawyers any better than Judy. You may remember her from the Susan Smith case in South Carolina, where Smith was charged with drowning her two sons; or the Unabomber case, or the case of Eric Rudolf. Thanks to Judy (and those who helped her), all avoided the death penalty. She also worked on the Zacarias Moussaoui defense team for a while. The AP called her "a one woman dream team."
Judy is a past-President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), where she's affectionately called "Saint Judy" -- and a friend. She is both a great person and a great lawyer.
From Judy's closing in the guilt phase of Susan Smith:
This is not a case about evil, this is a case about sadness," Clarke said. "She made a horrible, horrible decision to be at that lake that night. She made that decision with a confused mind and a heart that had no hope. But confusion is not evil and hopelessness is not malice."
In the penalty phase of the trial to decide life or death:
Smith's lawyers countered in their opening statement that Smith knows she has "sinned" and "accepts responsibility" for killing her sons.
But defense attorney Judy Clarke also implored the jury to understand that Smith suffered from "mental illness" and had "snapped" on the night of the drownings after a lifetime of emotional trauma. The boys' deaths, Clarke told the jurors, was the result of Smith's own botched suicide attempt.
"Suicide is why we're here. In her own suicidal confusion, she believed the children would go with her, but the body wills to live and Susan jumped out of the car," Clarke said. "Once the car began rolling, those children were lost and Susan's life was lost."
And,
Her voice steady, Clarke rejected [prosecutor] Giese's argument in her 14-minute reply, saying that the boys were the "sunshine" of Smith's life. "Use your common sense, it was not a boyfriend" that propelled the drownings, Clarke told the jury. "Use your common sense, it was not to get rid of an obstacle."
Instead, Clarke urged the jury to see Smith as driven by a "failing life," by emotional problems that stemmed from a father who committed suicide when she was 6 and a stepfather who molested her when she was 16.
"When we talk about Susan's life, we're not trying to gain your sympathy," Clarke said. "We're trying to gain your understanding. Susan Smith tried to cope with a failing life and she sank."
The jury returned a verdict of life in prison.
She has been the most hated lawyer before, representing the Unabomber, Susan Smith, and Zacarias Moussaoui. She may be the most hated, but she's the reason our system works. What would happen if no lawyer would agree to represent Loughner?
In any event, TalkLeft has an excellent write-up on her:
They don't make defense lawyers any better than Judy. You may remember her from the Susan Smith case in South Carolina, where Smith was charged with drowning her two sons; or the Unabomber case, or the case of Eric Rudolf. Thanks to Judy (and those who helped her), all avoided the death penalty. She also worked on the Zacarias Moussaoui defense team for a while. The AP called her "a one woman dream team."
Judy is a past-President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), where she's affectionately called "Saint Judy" -- and a friend. She is both a great person and a great lawyer.
From Judy's closing in the guilt phase of Susan Smith:
This is not a case about evil, this is a case about sadness," Clarke said. "She made a horrible, horrible decision to be at that lake that night. She made that decision with a confused mind and a heart that had no hope. But confusion is not evil and hopelessness is not malice."
In the penalty phase of the trial to decide life or death:
Smith's lawyers countered in their opening statement that Smith knows she has "sinned" and "accepts responsibility" for killing her sons.
But defense attorney Judy Clarke also implored the jury to understand that Smith suffered from "mental illness" and had "snapped" on the night of the drownings after a lifetime of emotional trauma. The boys' deaths, Clarke told the jurors, was the result of Smith's own botched suicide attempt.
"Suicide is why we're here. In her own suicidal confusion, she believed the children would go with her, but the body wills to live and Susan jumped out of the car," Clarke said. "Once the car began rolling, those children were lost and Susan's life was lost."
And,
Her voice steady, Clarke rejected [prosecutor] Giese's argument in her 14-minute reply, saying that the boys were the "sunshine" of Smith's life. "Use your common sense, it was not a boyfriend" that propelled the drownings, Clarke told the jury. "Use your common sense, it was not to get rid of an obstacle."
Instead, Clarke urged the jury to see Smith as driven by a "failing life," by emotional problems that stemmed from a father who committed suicide when she was 6 and a stepfather who molested her when she was 16.
"When we talk about Susan's life, we're not trying to gain your sympathy," Clarke said. "We're trying to gain your understanding. Susan Smith tried to cope with a failing life and she sank."
The jury returned a verdict of life in prison.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Judge Hurley: I would have found Joel Williams not guilty
From the Sun-Sentinel:
Charged initially with a money-laundering conspiracy involving Broward County Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion, Joel Williams was sentenced Thursday to just two years of probation for filing false income tax returns.
U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley took the prosecution by surprise when he briefly criticized the government's case against Williams, an offshoot of the FBI's high-profile and successful undercover sting on public corruption in Broward County.
The judge said he would have found Williams not guilty of the money-laundering charges "on the grounds of entrapment" and that he felt those charges had been the result of "pie in the sky" created by the government.
Big win for Assistant Federal Defender Daryl Wilcox, who hung the jury the first time around. More:
"I don't absolve him," Hurley said. "I don't suggest that what he did was appropriate but I think he allowed himself to be swept along in something that sounded too good to be true."
In an interview after the sentencing, Williams said he had been stupid and greedy.
"[When] people that you trust and look up to say things, you get overwhelmed and believe them. You put blinders on," he said.
Charged initially with a money-laundering conspiracy involving Broward County Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion, Joel Williams was sentenced Thursday to just two years of probation for filing false income tax returns.
U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley took the prosecution by surprise when he briefly criticized the government's case against Williams, an offshoot of the FBI's high-profile and successful undercover sting on public corruption in Broward County.
The judge said he would have found Williams not guilty of the money-laundering charges "on the grounds of entrapment" and that he felt those charges had been the result of "pie in the sky" created by the government.
Big win for Assistant Federal Defender Daryl Wilcox, who hung the jury the first time around. More:
"I don't absolve him," Hurley said. "I don't suggest that what he did was appropriate but I think he allowed himself to be swept along in something that sounded too good to be true."
In an interview after the sentencing, Williams said he had been stupid and greedy.
"[When] people that you trust and look up to say things, you get overwhelmed and believe them. You put blinders on," he said.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Cross-sex strip searches in jail humiliating and unconstitutional?

Yes, says a 6-5 9th Circuit in this opinion. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
The inmate, Charles Byrd, was in Maricopa County's minimum-security jail awaiting trial in October 2004 when officials ordered searches of everyone in his unit after a series of fights.
Byrd was ordered to strip down to his [boxers] - colored pink, as required for all inmates by Joe Arpaio, the county's hard-line sheriff - and was searched by a female cadet from a training academy. She said she had taken no more than 20 seconds, while Byrd estimated the time at a minute. No contraband was found.
A three-judge appeals court panel ordered Byrd's civil rights suit dismissed in 2009, citing the jail's security needs and past rulings allowing female guards to pat down clothed male prisoners and observe naked male inmates.
But after the full appeals court ordered a rehearing, a majority of Wednesday's panel said cross-gender probes of intimate areas violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches.
Forget about the strip search; how about having to wear pink underwear in jail? Talk about humiliating...
The inmate, Charles Byrd, was in Maricopa County's minimum-security jail awaiting trial in October 2004 when officials ordered searches of everyone in his unit after a series of fights.
Byrd was ordered to strip down to his [boxers] - colored pink, as required for all inmates by Joe Arpaio, the county's hard-line sheriff - and was searched by a female cadet from a training academy. She said she had taken no more than 20 seconds, while Byrd estimated the time at a minute. No contraband was found.
A three-judge appeals court panel ordered Byrd's civil rights suit dismissed in 2009, citing the jail's security needs and past rulings allowing female guards to pat down clothed male prisoners and observe naked male inmates.
But after the full appeals court ordered a rehearing, a majority of Wednesday's panel said cross-gender probes of intimate areas violate the constitutional ban on unreasonable searches.
Forget about the strip search; how about having to wear pink underwear in jail? Talk about humiliating...
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
"Nudity itself is not per se indecent."

That was the Second Circuit, discussing Connie McDowell's scene in an NYPD epidosde. From the AP:
The Federal Communications Commission cannot fine broadcasters for showing a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue," a federal court ruled Tuesday, citing its earlier decision to strike down FCC rules regarding fleeting expletives uttered on live broadcasts as unconstitutionally vague.
The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided Tuesday to nullify a $27,500 penalty that the FCC imposed on ABC and 45 of its affiliate stations after the image was broadcast on the police drama for less than seven seconds in February 2003. The combined fine was greater than $1.2 million.
The appeals court said its finding was consistent with its decision last year that TV stations can no longer be fined for fleeting, unscripted profanities uttered during live broadcasts.
The FCC had created its fleeting-expletive policy after a January 2003 NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards in which U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "f------ brilliant." The FCC said that word in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can lead to enforcement.
Fox Television Stations, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and other networks challenged the policy in 2006 after the FCC cited the use of profanity during awards programs that were aired in 2002 and 2003. The FCC has appealed that ruling.
In its Tuesday ruling, a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel wrote that there was "no significant distinction" between its decision in the expletives case and its findings in the "NYPD Blue" case.
The FCC is way over-zealous and over-protective, so the Second Circuit was right to slap the the agency down. Still, broadcasters are afraid of airing anything close to the line, and something more needs to be done than a circuit court opinion... In better news, Howard Stern now has an app!
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Efraim Diveroli gets 4 years
From the AP's Curt Anderson:
A youthful arms dealer whose company once boasted a $300 million Pentagon munitions contract was sentenced Monday to four years in federal prison for trying to ship millions of rounds of prohibited Chinese-made ammunition to Afghan forces fighting alongside U.S. troops.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard imposed the sentence on 25-year-old Efraim Diveroli, who faced a maximum of five years behind bars after pleading guilty in 2009 to a fraud conspiracy charge. Three other executives in Diveroli's AEY Inc. are awaiting sentencing.
Lenard gave Diveroli credit for accepting responsibility for the crime but said he deserved a serious stint in prison because his scheme could have endangered U.S. military personnel and their Afghan allies. Much of the ammunition was decades old and could have been faulty.
"To participate in such a fraud when people are putting their lives on the line, that makes it so much sadder. For money," Lenard told a courtroom crowded with Diveroli family members and supporters from Miami Beach's tight-knit Jewish community, including two rabbis.
"Mr. Diveroli may have been clever, but not wise," Lenard said.
This was a win for for Diveroli's lawyers, Hy Shapiro and Howard Srebnick, who capped their client's exposure at 5 years and then got acceptance of responsibility credit for their client:
In return for Diveroli's guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, prosecutors dropped another 84 counts against him.
But his legal troubles are not over.
While out on bail awaiting sentencing in the Miami case, Diveroli was arrested in August in the Orlando area by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents, charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms.
Prosecutors in that case say Diveroli was attempting to broker another major arms and ammunition deal despite no longer having a license to do so and the Miami conviction. After pleading guilty in that case, Diveroli was ordered to forfeit several 9mm handguns and at least two semiautomatic rifles, according to court documents.
In one telephone call secretly recorded by ATF agents, Diveroli told an undercover agent posing as a potential arms buyer that "he keeps getting drawn back into this activity" despite his legal troubles.
"Once a gun runner, always a gun runner," Diveroli is quoted as saying in court papers.
Sentencing in the Orlando case is set for Jan. 25. Diveroli could get an additional 10 years in prison, but will likely get less.
A youthful arms dealer whose company once boasted a $300 million Pentagon munitions contract was sentenced Monday to four years in federal prison for trying to ship millions of rounds of prohibited Chinese-made ammunition to Afghan forces fighting alongside U.S. troops.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard imposed the sentence on 25-year-old Efraim Diveroli, who faced a maximum of five years behind bars after pleading guilty in 2009 to a fraud conspiracy charge. Three other executives in Diveroli's AEY Inc. are awaiting sentencing.
Lenard gave Diveroli credit for accepting responsibility for the crime but said he deserved a serious stint in prison because his scheme could have endangered U.S. military personnel and their Afghan allies. Much of the ammunition was decades old and could have been faulty.
"To participate in such a fraud when people are putting their lives on the line, that makes it so much sadder. For money," Lenard told a courtroom crowded with Diveroli family members and supporters from Miami Beach's tight-knit Jewish community, including two rabbis.
"Mr. Diveroli may have been clever, but not wise," Lenard said.
This was a win for for Diveroli's lawyers, Hy Shapiro and Howard Srebnick, who capped their client's exposure at 5 years and then got acceptance of responsibility credit for their client:
In return for Diveroli's guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, prosecutors dropped another 84 counts against him.
But his legal troubles are not over.
While out on bail awaiting sentencing in the Miami case, Diveroli was arrested in August in the Orlando area by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents, charged with being a convicted felon in possession of firearms.
Prosecutors in that case say Diveroli was attempting to broker another major arms and ammunition deal despite no longer having a license to do so and the Miami conviction. After pleading guilty in that case, Diveroli was ordered to forfeit several 9mm handguns and at least two semiautomatic rifles, according to court documents.
In one telephone call secretly recorded by ATF agents, Diveroli told an undercover agent posing as a potential arms buyer that "he keeps getting drawn back into this activity" despite his legal troubles.
"Once a gun runner, always a gun runner," Diveroli is quoted as saying in court papers.
Sentencing in the Orlando case is set for Jan. 25. Diveroli could get an additional 10 years in prison, but will likely get less.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Back to work...
Hope everyone had a nice new year. It's good to be back. A quick look at what was missed the last week:
1. The Cuban Spies strike back... against their lawyers. From the Miami Herald:
In his appeal, Hernandez, 45, contends that his trial attorney, Paul McKenna, mishandled his defense at a 2001 Miami federal trial by focusing so much on the shoot-down location.
That strategy overshadowed evidence that Hernandez purportedly did not know in advance about the deadly Cuban plot over the Florida Straits, the appeal asserts. Evidence of his advance knowledge was crucial to proving his role in the murder conspiracy.
"In short, Hernandez's lawyer was his worst enemy in the courtroom," his appellate attorneys wrote in a habeas corpus petition filed in Miami federal court.
2. Judge Carnes vs. Judge Tjoflat in Floride Norelus v. Denny's Inc.
Both SFL and Kosher Meatball cover this 2-1 case about sanctions against the Amlongs for a 63-page errata sheet. From Judge Carnes' intro:
No one’s memory is perfect. People forget things or get confused, and anyone can make an innocent misstatement or two. Or maybe even three or four. But not 868 of them. In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys, William and Karen Amlong, filed a sixty-three page errata sheet containing 868 attempted changes to their client’s deposition testimony, which was the sole source of evidentiary support for their client’s claims. The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs. This is their appeal, or more specifically their second appeal.
But what struck me was not so much Judge Carnes' colorful way of writing about the case (agree with his decisions or not, he makes reading them fun), but instead how he engages Judge Tjoflat (the concurring judge, District Judge Bowen, did not join in any of these remarks):
3. SFL won the blog fantasy football league this year. Well done!
4. Mona and I won the Above the Law fantasy football league.
5. I beat Rumpole in the regular season head-to-head football challenge, but we will continue it into the playoffs. It was a fun battle, especially because watching the Dolphins was torture.
6. Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog is leaving Akin Gump and is going back out on his own. (Via ATL)
1. The Cuban Spies strike back... against their lawyers. From the Miami Herald:
In his appeal, Hernandez, 45, contends that his trial attorney, Paul McKenna, mishandled his defense at a 2001 Miami federal trial by focusing so much on the shoot-down location.
That strategy overshadowed evidence that Hernandez purportedly did not know in advance about the deadly Cuban plot over the Florida Straits, the appeal asserts. Evidence of his advance knowledge was crucial to proving his role in the murder conspiracy.
"In short, Hernandez's lawyer was his worst enemy in the courtroom," his appellate attorneys wrote in a habeas corpus petition filed in Miami federal court.
2. Judge Carnes vs. Judge Tjoflat in Floride Norelus v. Denny's Inc.
Both SFL and Kosher Meatball cover this 2-1 case about sanctions against the Amlongs for a 63-page errata sheet. From Judge Carnes' intro:
No one’s memory is perfect. People forget things or get confused, and anyone can make an innocent misstatement or two. Or maybe even three or four. But not 868 of them. In this case, the plaintiff’s attorneys, William and Karen Amlong, filed a sixty-three page errata sheet containing 868 attempted changes to their client’s deposition testimony, which was the sole source of evidentiary support for their client’s claims. The district court exercised its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to sanction the Amlongs. This is their appeal, or more specifically their second appeal.
But what struck me was not so much Judge Carnes' colorful way of writing about the case (agree with his decisions or not, he makes reading them fun), but instead how he engages Judge Tjoflat (the concurring judge, District Judge Bowen, did not join in any of these remarks):
- As the magistrate judge found and no one (with the possible exception of the
dissenting judge on this panel) seriously contests, the improper submission of the
massive errata document rendered the eight days spent on Norelus’ deposition a
waste of time and money to say nothing of the time the attorneys were forced to
spend on the issues created by the document itself. - Up to this point, we have addressed the issues related to the errata document
and the award of sanctions as those issues have been raised and defined since that
document was submitted fourteen years ago. Our dissenting colleague, by contrast, has hatched a brand new theory—a theory that was never raised by the parties, never considered by the district court, and never argued to this Court. The theory
that he has conjured up is that the errata sheet was really nothing more than a
“letter” from Karen Amlong to defense counsel. It was not, he insists, an errata
sheet because he thinks it was never presented to the court reporter or affixed to
Norelus’ deposition as, he thinks, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 requires. Dissenting Op. at 1. He is wrong on his premises and wrong in his conclusion. - Instead of recognizing the obvious import of Norelus’ own certification or following our precedent about who has the burden on appeal where there are any ambiguities, the dissenting judge would remake the case entirely along different factual lines, lines that only he sees.
- From its inception, the errata document has been understood by all, except our dissenting colleague, to be a Rule 30 errata sheet.
- That certification itself and its use to assert “exceptions” to the deposition belies the dissent’s far-fetched assertion that the errata sheet was nothing more than a letter from one attorney to another. And there is more.
- The Amlongs, the defendants, the magistrate judge, the district court judge, all three judges of this Court in Amlong I, everyone in the district court after the remand, and both parties in briefing and arguing the present appeal have understood that. Everyone has understood it—except for our dissenting colleague.
- Now, after almost a decade-and-a-half of litigation, he has been able to discern what everyone else has overlooked: that the Rule 30 errata sheet is not really a Rule 30 errata sheet, but it is instead “a document, although entitled ‘errata sheet,’ [which] had no more legal efficacy than a letter.” Dissenting Op. at 22. During a period of almost fifteen years of looking at the document, no one else has ever thought it was just a letter. And no wonder. Treating the errata sheet as nothing more than a letter is like arguing after Gettysburg that the warring sides had been mistaken all along about the bombardment of Fort Sumter, that it was actually nothing more than a diplomatic overture.
- And the dissenting judge’s extraordinary perception does not end there. He
is even able to perceive that everyone else’s inability to see that the errata sheet isnot really an errata sheet is not the fault of the Amlongs, who designated it an
errata sheet and have been arguing for almost a decade and a half that is what it is, and not the fault of all the judges who have consistently treated it as an errata sheet, but instead is the fault of—who else is left? Defense counsel, of course. See Dissenting Op. at 2, 19–20, 22–23. - Even beyond the facts, there is another problem with the dissent’s attempt to inject the not-an-errata-sheet-but-just-a-letter issue into the case at this point. The issue has been defaulted about as many times and in about as many ways as any issue can be.
3. SFL won the blog fantasy football league this year. Well done!
4. Mona and I won the Above the Law fantasy football league.
5. I beat Rumpole in the regular season head-to-head football challenge, but we will continue it into the playoffs. It was a fun battle, especially because watching the Dolphins was torture.
6. Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog is leaving Akin Gump and is going back out on his own. (Via ATL)
Monday, December 27, 2010
Is anyone working this week?
SFL and Kosher Meatball are blogging away, and CM/ECF is alerting me to motions still being filed. But I'm having trouble motivating for the blog. So, I think I'm going to take the week off from blogging. If something exciting happens (not like denials of cert or judges not getting appointed), I'll post it. But if you don't hear from me, have an excellent holiday week and Happy New Year. See you all in a week.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
"Zee Zee" cleared by Magistrate Judge Johnson
That's Fort Lauderdale cardiologist and prominent Republican fundraiser Zachariah Zachariah (George Bush called him Zee Zee), who was charged civilly with using insider information to make $1 million in illegal stock profits in 2005. He was represented by Curt Miner of Colson Hicks. From John Pacenti's article in the DBR:
[Judge] Johnson said the evidence was not sufficient to show that Zachariah "would be willing to jeopardize his reputation and his career and put his family in harm’s way all for the opportunity to make what was an insignificant profit to him in light of his means at the time."
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra adopted Johnson’s findings on Monday, issuing a final judgment in Zachariah’s favor.
Zachariah’s attorney, Curtis Miner, a partner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, said Johnson’s decision is "a pretty stinging rebuke of the government’s case. She said the government’s argument strained credulity."
In a statement, Zachariah said: "I have great faith in our justice system, and I always knew I would be fully vindicated. The government put me through a long ordeal, but I am very happy to turn 100 percent of my attention back to my medical practice. "
Zachariah practices at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale.
Zachariah’s bench trial in front of Johnson lasted nine days over two months this fall.
[Judge] Johnson said the evidence was not sufficient to show that Zachariah "would be willing to jeopardize his reputation and his career and put his family in harm’s way all for the opportunity to make what was an insignificant profit to him in light of his means at the time."
U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra adopted Johnson’s findings on Monday, issuing a final judgment in Zachariah’s favor.
Zachariah’s attorney, Curtis Miner, a partner at Colson Hicks Eidson in Coral Gables, said Johnson’s decision is "a pretty stinging rebuke of the government’s case. She said the government’s argument strained credulity."
In a statement, Zachariah said: "I have great faith in our justice system, and I always knew I would be fully vindicated. The government put me through a long ordeal, but I am very happy to turn 100 percent of my attention back to my medical practice. "
Zachariah practices at Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale.
Zachariah’s bench trial in front of Johnson lasted nine days over two months this fall.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Awesome new blog

It's called Law and the Multiverse Blog, and the NY Times featured it today:
Is Superman’s heat vision a weapon? If so, would the Second Amendment protect his right to melt pistols and cook hamburgers with it?
You might not have thought to ask these questions. You might have, in other words, a life. But a new blog and the interest it is generating show that there are people who look at an epic battle between superheroes and super-villains and really, really want to know who should be found liable for the broken buildings and shattered streets.
Those people now have a blog called Law and the Multiverse: Superheroes, supervillains, and the law. Kicked off on Nov. 30, it addresses questions like: “What if someone is convicted for murder, and then the victim comes back to life?” And whether mutants are a legally recognizable class entitled to constitutional protection from discrimination.
Law and the Multiverse is the deadpan creation of two lawyers, James Daily, in Missouri, and Ryan Davidson in Indiana. Both are 28; they have only met online but collaborate like old friends.
Mr. Daily said the inspiration for the blog came, as so many great ideas do, over dinner with his wife and friends. They began discussing whether the parallel-dimension versions of a super-villain could somehow be brought to justice in a single trial. Alcohol, he insisted, was not involved. Once he discussed his plans for the blog on Metafilter, a collaborative site where people hash out projects, Mr. Davidson got in touch to offer his ideas and support — or, as he put it: “Hey, this looks awesome! Do you want a collaborator?”
Love it. I like these questions:
Other topics include the admissibility of evidence obtained through mind reading by Professor X of the X-men and whether the RICO Act could be effectively used by prosecutors against the Legion of Doom.
The answers are dry, technical and funny in their earnestness. The Second Amendment, Mr. Daily suggested, would protect many powers, but “at least some superpowers would qualify as dangerous or unusual weapons (e.g., Cyclops’ optic blasts, Havok’s plasma blasts)” that are “well beyond the power of weapons allowed even by permit.” Those super-duper powers would be tightly regulated, if not banned outright.
Then there’s this jurisprudential nugget: When Batman, the DC Comics hero, nabs crooks, is the evidence gathered against the bad guys admissible in court? Not if he is working so closely with Commissioner Gordon that his feats fall under the “state actor” doctrine, in which a person is deemed to be acting on behalf of government and thus is subject to the restrictions on government power. In fact, he might be courting a lawsuit claiming violations of civil rights from those who were nabbed.
“Either all of the criminals in Gotham have incompetent attorneys, the state action doctrine in the DC universe is weaker than it is in the real world, or Gordon has actually managed to keep his reliance on Batman a secret,” Mr. Daily wrote. “I’m going to opt for the second explanation.”
HT: MC
Friday, December 17, 2010
Quiet week
Not much to report at the end of this quiet week.
1. Uncle Luke (represented by Richard Brodsky) won before Judge Cooke.
2. Steve Binhak won a criminal environmental trial before Judge Gonzalez. From the PBP:
"It should send a shiver down your spine," Binhak told jurors. "Water seeping underground is connected all over the world. That means your backyard is connected to Florida Bay and the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge. Think about that the next time you cut your lawn."
3. Eddie O'Donnell Jr. and Bill Roppolo won a criminal tax trial before Judge Martinez.
Holiday time is a good time to try cases...
Have a nice weekend.
Update-- one other verdict from Friday: Paul Calli and Mike Pasano got a hung jury before Judge Hurley in a business opportunities case.
--DM
1. Uncle Luke (represented by Richard Brodsky) won before Judge Cooke.
2. Steve Binhak won a criminal environmental trial before Judge Gonzalez. From the PBP:
"It should send a shiver down your spine," Binhak told jurors. "Water seeping underground is connected all over the world. That means your backyard is connected to Florida Bay and the Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge. Think about that the next time you cut your lawn."
3. Eddie O'Donnell Jr. and Bill Roppolo won a criminal tax trial before Judge Martinez.
Holiday time is a good time to try cases...
Have a nice weekend.
Update-- one other verdict from Friday: Paul Calli and Mike Pasano got a hung jury before Judge Hurley in a business opportunities case.
--DM
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Acquitted Lyglenson Lemorin to be deported?
This blog has covered the horrible saga of Mr. Lemorin before. He was the one defendant in the Liberty City 7 case that was acquitted. But no matter, says an immigration judge. He sits in jail, awaiting deportation to Haiti.
This is really an outrage.
The fight is still going on, but it's not looking so good for Lemorin. From the Herald:
Lyglenson Lemorin was acquitted of all charges in the Liberty City Seven terrorism trial three years ago. But he soon faces deportation to earthquake-ravaged Haiti by immigration authorities who still consider him a terrorist sympathizer and threat to national security.
Lemorin's lawyer on Wednesday filed an emergency petition to stop the legal American resident's removal from the United States. The odds are stacked against him, however, because the federal appeals court reviewing his case rarely grants such relief.
``It's a complete tragedy, a complete disregard for human life,'' said Lemorin's immigration attorney, Charles Kuck. ``Haiti is still an unmitigated disaster.''
In court filings, Justice Department lawyers responded that they oppose the emergency petition, saying only that Lemorin won't be deported before Jan. 12.
Haitian-born Lemorin, 35, grew up in Miami. He has been jailed in Georgia, Florida and now Louisiana and could be deported as soon as January. That's when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement resumes deportations of Haitian nationals convicted of crimes in this country. Although Lemorin has no conviction, he is being lumped together with those who do, his lawyer said.
This is really an outrage.
The fight is still going on, but it's not looking so good for Lemorin. From the Herald:
Lyglenson Lemorin was acquitted of all charges in the Liberty City Seven terrorism trial three years ago. But he soon faces deportation to earthquake-ravaged Haiti by immigration authorities who still consider him a terrorist sympathizer and threat to national security.
Lemorin's lawyer on Wednesday filed an emergency petition to stop the legal American resident's removal from the United States. The odds are stacked against him, however, because the federal appeals court reviewing his case rarely grants such relief.
``It's a complete tragedy, a complete disregard for human life,'' said Lemorin's immigration attorney, Charles Kuck. ``Haiti is still an unmitigated disaster.''
In court filings, Justice Department lawyers responded that they oppose the emergency petition, saying only that Lemorin won't be deported before Jan. 12.
Haitian-born Lemorin, 35, grew up in Miami. He has been jailed in Georgia, Florida and now Louisiana and could be deported as soon as January. That's when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement resumes deportations of Haitian nationals convicted of crimes in this country. Although Lemorin has no conviction, he is being lumped together with those who do, his lawyer said.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Feds arrest in case where only .01% chance of getting caught
At least that's what the defendant put the odds at in this UBS case (via the AP):
A former banker at Switzerland's UBS AG has been charged with tax fraud conspiracy for allegedly helping a wealthy U.S. client hide assets from the Internal Revenue Service.
Banker Renzo Gadola was named in the charging document filed Tuesday in Miami federal court. The document claims that Gadola and an unnamed second Swiss banker helped an unidentified Mississippi man hide an account at UBS and open another secret account at a second Swiss bank.
Gadola worked at UBS for 13 years, then in early 2009 began working as an independent investment adviser.
Prosecutors say Gadola and the other banker tried to prevent the client from disclosing his secret accounts to the IRS. During a November meeting at a Miami hotel, according to court documents, Gadola told the client the likelihood that his new accounts would be discovered was "practically zero percent."
"You have no link to UBS whatsoever, so 99.9 percent you have nothing to worry about," Gadola told the client, according to court documents.
Speaking of other things that happen only .01% of the time, a federal appellate court today ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in a Fourth Amendment case. And it was a biggie. Orin Kerr from Volokh has all the details of United States v. Warshak from the 6th Circuit, where the court held that email is protected by the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment. That almost deserves an !. (Hat tip: JK).
A former banker at Switzerland's UBS AG has been charged with tax fraud conspiracy for allegedly helping a wealthy U.S. client hide assets from the Internal Revenue Service.
Banker Renzo Gadola was named in the charging document filed Tuesday in Miami federal court. The document claims that Gadola and an unnamed second Swiss banker helped an unidentified Mississippi man hide an account at UBS and open another secret account at a second Swiss bank.
Gadola worked at UBS for 13 years, then in early 2009 began working as an independent investment adviser.
Prosecutors say Gadola and the other banker tried to prevent the client from disclosing his secret accounts to the IRS. During a November meeting at a Miami hotel, according to court documents, Gadola told the client the likelihood that his new accounts would be discovered was "practically zero percent."
"You have no link to UBS whatsoever, so 99.9 percent you have nothing to worry about," Gadola told the client, according to court documents.
Speaking of other things that happen only .01% of the time, a federal appellate court today ruled in favor of a criminal defendant in a Fourth Amendment case. And it was a biggie. Orin Kerr from Volokh has all the details of United States v. Warshak from the 6th Circuit, where the court held that email is protected by the warrant clause of the 4th Amendment. That almost deserves an !. (Hat tip: JK).
Monday, December 13, 2010
!!!
SFL isn't the only blogger that can discuss civil cases and exclamation points. From the published decision today in Isabel Diaz v. Jaguar Restaurant, which addressed the issue of whether an affirmative defense was waived or not: "If ever there were a classic case of waiver, this is it!"
I think Elaine's boss said it best:
I think Elaine's boss said it best:
Monday morning quick hits
1. The DBR does its year in review. Lots of bad eggs in the year -- Rothstein, Freeman, Adorno, Tolz... I don't think Santa will be bringing those guys anything this year.
2. I forgot to post the Obama pardon story from a couple weeks ago. He finally pardoned some humans but the list is really a joke. It includes Ronald Lee Foster of Beaver Falls, Pa., who was sentenced to a year of probation and a $20 fine for mutilating coins in 1963. Wow, thank goodness Obama was on top of that one... "The president was moved by the strength of the applicants' post-conviction efforts at atonement, as well as their superior citizenship and individual achievements in the years since their convictions," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
3. No more crush videos: President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a bill that outlaws the creation and distribution of so-called animal crush videos -- culminating a remarkably quick response to a Supreme Court decision handed down less than eight months ago.
It was April 20 when the Court, in United States v. Stevens, struck down an earlier federal law that banned a more broadly defined category of depictions of animal cruelty. The Court found that law to be "substantially overbroad" and therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment, because it could apply to hunting and fishing videos and other legitimate depictions.
The new law, passed with bipartisan support after hearings in recent months, focuses more narrowly on "obscene" animal crush videos in which animals are crushed or burned or otherwise mutilated. The definition ties the offense to obscenity -- which is not protected by the First Amendment -- by noting that the videos appeal to a particular sexual fetish.
2. I forgot to post the Obama pardon story from a couple weeks ago. He finally pardoned some humans but the list is really a joke. It includes Ronald Lee Foster of Beaver Falls, Pa., who was sentenced to a year of probation and a $20 fine for mutilating coins in 1963. Wow, thank goodness Obama was on top of that one... "The president was moved by the strength of the applicants' post-conviction efforts at atonement, as well as their superior citizenship and individual achievements in the years since their convictions," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
3. No more crush videos: President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into law a bill that outlaws the creation and distribution of so-called animal crush videos -- culminating a remarkably quick response to a Supreme Court decision handed down less than eight months ago.
It was April 20 when the Court, in United States v. Stevens, struck down an earlier federal law that banned a more broadly defined category of depictions of animal cruelty. The Court found that law to be "substantially overbroad" and therefore unconstitutional under the First Amendment, because it could apply to hunting and fishing videos and other legitimate depictions.
The new law, passed with bipartisan support after hearings in recent months, focuses more narrowly on "obscene" animal crush videos in which animals are crushed or burned or otherwise mutilated. The definition ties the offense to obscenity -- which is not protected by the First Amendment -- by noting that the videos appeal to a particular sexual fetish.
Friday, December 10, 2010
“California may be about to execute an innocent man.”
That's the opening line of Judge Fletcher's 100 page dissent from en banc review in the 9th Circuit and the opening line of this NY Times op-ed. This makes my blood boil -- if you can't make it through the entire dissent, you should check out the article. It very persuasively sets forth how Kevin Cooper, a black man in California who faces lethal injection for supposedly murdering a white family, was framed by police. Forget the horrors of an innocent man having spent the last 20 years on death row, how can the judiciary allow the state to execute him when he is "probably innocent" according to Judge Fletcher and 4 other Ninth Circuit judges. The NY Times has called for Governor Schwarzenegger commute the sentence:
This case is a travesty. It underscores the central pitfall of capital punishment: no system is fail-safe. How can we be about to execute a man when even some of America’s leading judges believe he has been framed?
Lanny Davis, who was the White House counsel for President Bill Clinton, is representing Mr. Cooper pro bono. He laments: “The media and the bar have gone deaf and silent on Kevin Cooper. My simple theory: heinous brutal murder of white family and black convict. Simple as that.”
That’s a disgrace that threatens not only the life of one man, but the honor of our judicial system. Governor Schwarzenegger, are you listening?
This case is a travesty. It underscores the central pitfall of capital punishment: no system is fail-safe. How can we be about to execute a man when even some of America’s leading judges believe he has been framed?
Lanny Davis, who was the White House counsel for President Bill Clinton, is representing Mr. Cooper pro bono. He laments: “The media and the bar have gone deaf and silent on Kevin Cooper. My simple theory: heinous brutal murder of white family and black convict. Simple as that.”
That’s a disgrace that threatens not only the life of one man, but the honor of our judicial system. Governor Schwarzenegger, are you listening?
Thursday, December 09, 2010
That's "a pretty sorry state of affairs with respect to what goes on in the statehouse."
That was Judge Zloch during the change of plea for Alan Mendelsohn.
From the AP:
A politically connected eye doctor and prominent fundraiser pleaded guilty Thursday to a federal conspiracy charge, admitting he filed false tax returns, lied to FBI agents and diverted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions for his own use.
During a plea hearing, Dr. Alan Mendelsohn said he got caught up in a Tallahassee pay-to-play system in which politicians reward those who funnel money to the right places and punish people who refuse.
Mendelsohn, who lobbied legislators on various health issues, told U.S. District Judge William Zloch of one instance in which he paid $82,000 to an associate of former state Sen. Mandy Dawson, a Democrat who had demanded repeatedly that Mendelsohn "hire" the aide.
"Otherwise, we had the great fear of being retaliated against legislatively," Mendelsohn told the judge, adding that such practices are common in state government.
Zloch responded that it was "a pretty sorry state of affairs with respect to what goes on in the statehouse."
In other news, Rumpole is covering the very sad story of Judge Robert Pineiro's death. The comments on the blog about him are lovely and I wish his family well during this terrible time.
From the AP:
A politically connected eye doctor and prominent fundraiser pleaded guilty Thursday to a federal conspiracy charge, admitting he filed false tax returns, lied to FBI agents and diverted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions for his own use.
During a plea hearing, Dr. Alan Mendelsohn said he got caught up in a Tallahassee pay-to-play system in which politicians reward those who funnel money to the right places and punish people who refuse.
Mendelsohn, who lobbied legislators on various health issues, told U.S. District Judge William Zloch of one instance in which he paid $82,000 to an associate of former state Sen. Mandy Dawson, a Democrat who had demanded repeatedly that Mendelsohn "hire" the aide.
"Otherwise, we had the great fear of being retaliated against legislatively," Mendelsohn told the judge, adding that such practices are common in state government.
Zloch responded that it was "a pretty sorry state of affairs with respect to what goes on in the statehouse."
In other news, Rumpole is covering the very sad story of Judge Robert Pineiro's death. The comments on the blog about him are lovely and I wish his family well during this terrible time.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Judge Cooke's annual holiday party
Fun with the new SDFLA website
I was looking at the revamped district website (that was discussed here), and there are some neat features it has. For example, you can pull recently filed criminal cases, recently filed civil cases, and recent jury verdicts. You could always do this on CM/ECF, but you had to pay for it. Now it's free. Good stuff.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
What you see is what you get.

Well not always. We've covered stories of government witnesses testifying in disguise. Well now a defendant gets to cover up...
When John Ditullio goes on trial on Monday, jurors will not see the large swastika tattooed on his neck. Or the crude insult tattooed on the other side of his neck. Or any of the other markings he has acquired since being jailed on charges related to a double stabbing that wounded a woman and killed a teenager in 2006.
Mr. Ditullio’s lawyer successfully argued that the tattoos could be distracting or prejudicial to the jurors, who under the law are supposed to consider only the facts presented to them. The case shows some of the challenges lawyers face when trying to get clients ready for trial — whether that means hitting the consignment shop for decent clothes for an impoverished client or telling wealthy clients to leave the bling at home.
“It’s easier to give someone who looks like you a fair shake,” said Bjorn E. Brunvand, Mr. Ditullio’s lawyer.
The court approved the judicial equivalent of an extreme makeover, paying $125 a day for the services of a cosmetologist to cover up the tattoos that Mr. Ditullio has gotten since his arrest. This is Mr. Ditullio’s second trial for the murder; the first, which also involved the services of a cosmetologist, ended last year in a mistrial. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.
“There’s no doubt in my mind — without the makeup being used, there’s no way a jury could look at John and judge him fairly,” Mr. Brunvand said in an interview in his office here. “It’s too frightening when you see him with the tattoos. It’s a scary picture.”
Mr. Ditullio’s lawyer successfully argued that the tattoos could be distracting or prejudicial to the jurors, who under the law are supposed to consider only the facts presented to them. The case shows some of the challenges lawyers face when trying to get clients ready for trial — whether that means hitting the consignment shop for decent clothes for an impoverished client or telling wealthy clients to leave the bling at home.
“It’s easier to give someone who looks like you a fair shake,” said Bjorn E. Brunvand, Mr. Ditullio’s lawyer.
The court approved the judicial equivalent of an extreme makeover, paying $125 a day for the services of a cosmetologist to cover up the tattoos that Mr. Ditullio has gotten since his arrest. This is Mr. Ditullio’s second trial for the murder; the first, which also involved the services of a cosmetologist, ended last year in a mistrial. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.
“There’s no doubt in my mind — without the makeup being used, there’s no way a jury could look at John and judge him fairly,” Mr. Brunvand said in an interview in his office here. “It’s too frightening when you see him with the tattoos. It’s a scary picture.”
Hence the cosmetologist. Chele, the owner of the company performing the work, said the process takes about 45 minutes
The first stage is a reddish layer to obscure the greenish tinge of the ink — “You cover a color with a color,” she explained. Then comes Dermablend, a cosmetic aid that smoothes and obscures and is used to cover scars and pigmentation disorders like vitiligo. A flesh-toned layer is then sprayed on with an air gun, and finally, to avoid the porcelain-doll look that comes from an even-hued coat, a final color touchup intended to, as theatrical makeup artists say, “put blood back in.”
The cosmetologist asked that she not be identified by her full name out of fear of reprisal and lost business. “We mostly do weddings,” she said.
The first stage is a reddish layer to obscure the greenish tinge of the ink — “You cover a color with a color,” she explained. Then comes Dermablend, a cosmetic aid that smoothes and obscures and is used to cover scars and pigmentation disorders like vitiligo. A flesh-toned layer is then sprayed on with an air gun, and finally, to avoid the porcelain-doll look that comes from an even-hued coat, a final color touchup intended to, as theatrical makeup artists say, “put blood back in.”
The cosmetologist asked that she not be identified by her full name out of fear of reprisal and lost business. “We mostly do weddings,” she said.
What say you readers? Should this defendant get a make-up job to get a fair trial or should the jury see him as he is?
Monday, December 06, 2010
Cameras in the 9th Circuit
Check it out today at 1pm on CSPAN -- it's the oral argument in the Prop 8 case in the 9th Circuit. From the LA Times:
Forget the latest episode of "House." The big TV event on Monday, at least in California, will be the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8, airing on C-SPAN. A panel of two appellate judges known to have liberal leanings and one with a more conservative reputation will consider the state's ban on same-sex marriage, passed by voters in 2008 but tossed out by a federal judge earlier this year.
We agree with U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling that found the proposition unconstitutional, and with his finding that gay men and lesbians have historically been targets of discrimination. As such, they are entitled to the highest level of protection from the courts under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against new laws that seek to strip them of their rights — including the right to marry. We also agree that there was no rational basis for Proposition 8. During the trial, even opponents of gay marriage were unable to articulate any ways in which such marriages would harm those of heterosexual couples, one of the contentions made by the defense. The defense's other claims — that heterosexual couples make better parents and that the purpose of marriage is responsible procreation — also fell apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
Forget the latest episode of "House." The big TV event on Monday, at least in California, will be the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hearing on Proposition 8, airing on C-SPAN. A panel of two appellate judges known to have liberal leanings and one with a more conservative reputation will consider the state's ban on same-sex marriage, passed by voters in 2008 but tossed out by a federal judge earlier this year.
We agree with U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling that found the proposition unconstitutional, and with his finding that gay men and lesbians have historically been targets of discrimination. As such, they are entitled to the highest level of protection from the courts under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against new laws that seek to strip them of their rights — including the right to marry. We also agree that there was no rational basis for Proposition 8. During the trial, even opponents of gay marriage were unable to articulate any ways in which such marriages would harm those of heterosexual couples, one of the contentions made by the defense. The defense's other claims — that heterosexual couples make better parents and that the purpose of marriage is responsible procreation — also fell apart under the lightest of scrutiny.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Another Mortgage Fraud NG verdict
This time it was before Judge Graham on a retrial of a bunch of defendants (the first jury hung). Trial took about a month. Defense lawyers were: Mike Smith, Sherri Romano, Orlando do Campo, Len Fenn, Marty Feigenbaum, Scott Sakin, Peter Patanzo, and Israel Escinosa. Congrats.
More of these cases need to go to trial.
More of these cases need to go to trial.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Tom Meeks receives Court's "Unsung Hero" award
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Congrats to the 3 who made the cut
A reliable source tells me that the Federal JNC will recommend Jerald Bagley, John O'Sullivan, and Bob Scola to the Senators. Congratulations to those three!
Interesting facts: all three are judges, two state and one federal magistrate. Bagley and Scola were finalists for the last seat as well. Kathy Williams is still waiting to be confirmed for that seat...
UPDATE-- Kendall Coffey sent this email late last night to the 16 applicants:
On behalf of the Southern District Conference of the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, I want to express our appreciation for the time you spent with us during your interview today. You are to be commended for your impressive presentation and qualifications as well as for your service to the public and to our profession. Because of the high quality of the applicants, these were truly difficult decisions. As a result of the deliberations that followed the interviews, the District Conference members have selected the following finalists whose names will be forwarded to Senator Nelson and Senator LeMieux in accordance with Rule 27 of the Florida Federal JNC Rules of Procedure:
Jerald Bagley
John J. O’Sullivan
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
Again, we are grateful for the opportunity to have met with you and truly appreciate your participation in this important process.
Kendall Coffey
Interesting facts: all three are judges, two state and one federal magistrate. Bagley and Scola were finalists for the last seat as well. Kathy Williams is still waiting to be confirmed for that seat...
UPDATE-- Kendall Coffey sent this email late last night to the 16 applicants:
On behalf of the Southern District Conference of the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, I want to express our appreciation for the time you spent with us during your interview today. You are to be commended for your impressive presentation and qualifications as well as for your service to the public and to our profession. Because of the high quality of the applicants, these were truly difficult decisions. As a result of the deliberations that followed the interviews, the District Conference members have selected the following finalists whose names will be forwarded to Senator Nelson and Senator LeMieux in accordance with Rule 27 of the Florida Federal JNC Rules of Procedure:
Jerald Bagley
John J. O’Sullivan
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
Again, we are grateful for the opportunity to have met with you and truly appreciate your participation in this important process.
Kendall Coffey
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Good luck to the applicants for Judge Huck's seat
The JNC is conducting interviews all day today. Good luck to all 16.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Justice Stevens weekend
Justice Stevens was everywhere this weekend. In the NY Times, discussing the death penalty:
In 1976, just six months after he joined the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. With the right procedures, he wrote, it is possible to ensure “evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.”
In 2008, two years before he announced his retirement, Justice Stevens reversed course and in a concurrence said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional.
But the reason for that change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1,100 executions, has in many ways remained a mystery, and now Justice Stevens has provided an explanation.
In a detailed, candid and critical essay to be published this week in The New York Review of Books, he wrote that personnel changes on the court, coupled with “regrettable judicial activism,” had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.
The essay is remarkable in itself. But it is also a sign that at 90, Justice Stevens is intent on speaking his mind on issues that may have been off limits while he was on the court.
The whole review by Justice Stevens is worth a read.
Stevens was also on 60 Minutes:
It's amazing to watch him -- he still seems young and vibrant. I didn't know that his father was convicted and that an appellate court reversed the conviction. He discusses how that impacted him as a kid and as a judge. He also was at the game where Babe Ruth called the shot, and he talks about that as well. Great stuff.
UPDATE -- Rumpole has more on the Stevens interview here.
In 1976, just six months after he joined the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. With the right procedures, he wrote, it is possible to ensure “evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.”
In 2008, two years before he announced his retirement, Justice Stevens reversed course and in a concurrence said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional.
But the reason for that change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1,100 executions, has in many ways remained a mystery, and now Justice Stevens has provided an explanation.
In a detailed, candid and critical essay to be published this week in The New York Review of Books, he wrote that personnel changes on the court, coupled with “regrettable judicial activism,” had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.
The essay is remarkable in itself. But it is also a sign that at 90, Justice Stevens is intent on speaking his mind on issues that may have been off limits while he was on the court.
The whole review by Justice Stevens is worth a read.
Stevens was also on 60 Minutes:
It's amazing to watch him -- he still seems young and vibrant. I didn't know that his father was convicted and that an appellate court reversed the conviction. He discusses how that impacted him as a kid and as a judge. He also was at the game where Babe Ruth called the shot, and he talks about that as well. Great stuff.
UPDATE -- Rumpole has more on the Stevens interview here.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving pardons?
While President Obama pardons a turkey today, he has yet to pardon one human being! On a lighter note, this video is making the rounds again:
Yikes!
In any event, happy turkey day to you all. We have a lot to be thankful for.
Yikes!
In any event, happy turkey day to you all. We have a lot to be thankful for.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
Most people emailing me this link about the boy who was charged with mutilating and killing cats who was cleared today are saying something like: "He has a lot to be thankful for! They dismissed today."
This kid's life has been ruined by these charges. I think those of us involved in the criminal justice system sometimes forget how much the fact of being charged really affects someone's life. The prosecutors ended up doing the right thing, but now what? How does Tyler Weinman get his life back? He was in high school when he got charged...
Here's the Herald article:
Prosecutors on Wednesday dropped their case against accused serial cat killer Tyler Weinman after two scientific experts determined that an animal, not the teen, was to blame for a string of grisly feline mutilations in South Miami-Dade last year.
That means Tyler Weinman, 19, is now a free man.
``Our job is to seek the truth and the truth is that this was done by an animal predator, not by a human being,'' Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said Wednesday.
Police and prosecutors -- who initially relied on the opinions of Miami-Dade's Animal Services department -- built a circumstantial and highly publicized case in the mutilations that terrorized pet owners across the upscale cities of Cutler Bay and Palmetto Bay.
Weinman was initially accused of slaying 19 cats in South Miami-Dade, was faced a slew of burglary and cruelty to animal felonies.
``I'm so happy right now,'' said defense attorney David Macey. ``Vindication. I'm thrilled. And Tyler is elated that justice has prevailed.''
No DNA linked Weinman to eight preserved animal carcasses and finally, a defense forensic veterinarian concluded that an animal was to blame for the killings. Two state experts agreed.
``They peeled back underneath the skin and found puncture wounds and that was the end of the case,'' Fernández Rundle said. ``This is a classic case of scientific evidence trumping a circumstantial case.''
This kid's life has been ruined by these charges. I think those of us involved in the criminal justice system sometimes forget how much the fact of being charged really affects someone's life. The prosecutors ended up doing the right thing, but now what? How does Tyler Weinman get his life back? He was in high school when he got charged...
Here's the Herald article:
Prosecutors on Wednesday dropped their case against accused serial cat killer Tyler Weinman after two scientific experts determined that an animal, not the teen, was to blame for a string of grisly feline mutilations in South Miami-Dade last year.
That means Tyler Weinman, 19, is now a free man.
``Our job is to seek the truth and the truth is that this was done by an animal predator, not by a human being,'' Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernández Rundle said Wednesday.
Police and prosecutors -- who initially relied on the opinions of Miami-Dade's Animal Services department -- built a circumstantial and highly publicized case in the mutilations that terrorized pet owners across the upscale cities of Cutler Bay and Palmetto Bay.
Weinman was initially accused of slaying 19 cats in South Miami-Dade, was faced a slew of burglary and cruelty to animal felonies.
``I'm so happy right now,'' said defense attorney David Macey. ``Vindication. I'm thrilled. And Tyler is elated that justice has prevailed.''
No DNA linked Weinman to eight preserved animal carcasses and finally, a defense forensic veterinarian concluded that an animal was to blame for the killings. Two state experts agreed.
``They peeled back underneath the skin and found puncture wounds and that was the end of the case,'' Fernández Rundle said. ``This is a classic case of scientific evidence trumping a circumstantial case.''
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Kimba Wood is cool
Check out this motion and Judge Wood's awesome response.
Courtesy of the WSJ Law Blog:
The Manhattan lawyer recently asked New York federal judge Kimba Wood to grant him a day’s reprieve in a criminal trial to attend the bris of his grandson. Epstein’s daughter has not yet given birth — so he doesn’t yet know the sex of the baby. But Epstein wanted to give Judge Wood ample notice to consider his request, given that his daughter’s due date is Dec. 3, smack in the middle of the scheduled trial.
So Epstein was stuck in the slightly awkward position of asking Judge Wood for a day off if, in fact, the baby turns out to be a boy. If it’s a girl, well, no bris, no day off needed.
Wrote Epstein...:
Judge Wood, in a note written at the bottom of the letter, granted the request. But she did Epstein one better. Wrote Wood:
Courtesy of the WSJ Law Blog:
The Manhattan lawyer recently asked New York federal judge Kimba Wood to grant him a day’s reprieve in a criminal trial to attend the bris of his grandson. Epstein’s daughter has not yet given birth — so he doesn’t yet know the sex of the baby. But Epstein wanted to give Judge Wood ample notice to consider his request, given that his daughter’s due date is Dec. 3, smack in the middle of the scheduled trial.
So Epstein was stuck in the slightly awkward position of asking Judge Wood for a day off if, in fact, the baby turns out to be a boy. If it’s a girl, well, no bris, no day off needed.
Wrote Epstein...:
Should the child be a girl, not much will happen in the way of public
celebration. Some may even be disappointed, but will do their best to conceal
this by saying, “as long as it’s a healthy baby.” . . . However, should the baby
be a boy, then hoo hah! Hordes of friends and family will arrive . . . for
the joyous celebration . . . known as the bris. . . . My presence at the bris is
not strictly commanded, although my absence will never be forgotten by those
that matter.
Judge Wood, in a note written at the bottom of the letter, granted the request. But she did Epstein one better. Wrote Wood:
Mr. Epstein will be permitted to attend the bris, in the joyous event that
a son is born. But the Court would like to balance the scales. If a daughter is
born, there will be a public celebration in Court, with readings from poetry
celebrating girls and women.
Federal JNC to interview all 16 applicants (updated)
I have it on good authority that all 16 applicants will be interviewed on November 30. I wonder if we can get Dore to live blog the interviews.
UPDATE -- Confirmed. See here. The 16 interviews start and end with Magistrates (Seltzer & O'Sullivan). Only a 40 minute lunch!
One commenter told me: "There are more JNC members than applicants!"
UPDATE -- Confirmed. See here. The 16 interviews start and end with Magistrates (Seltzer & O'Sullivan). Only a 40 minute lunch!
One commenter told me: "There are more JNC members than applicants!"
Monday, November 22, 2010
Unlike Justice Breyer, Justice Scalia is a techie
I posted last week about how Justice Breyer didn't really understand text messaging or Facebook. Well, Justice Scalia is different -- he even has an iPad and an iPod! From ABT:
By this point, the conversation started to shift into the home stretch, so Jan Crawford turned to fun stuff and lighter fare. She asked Justice Scalia: Do you have an iPod?
One might have expected Scalia, whose jurisprudence often involves traveling back in time to when particular constitutional provisions were enacted, to declare that he listens to all his music on a Victrola — but no. As it turns out, he does have an iPod!
This response seemed to catch Crawford by surprise. She asked him if he uploads the music himself; he said that he does, and that his playlist consists mostly of classical music and opera.
(It’s amusing to imagine Justice Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds in our nation, loading up his own iPod like a mere mortal. Couldn’t he ask a staffer to do it, or maybe one of his many grandchildren? But then again, if Justice Elena Kagan can fetch her own pizza, then Justice Scalia can load his own iPod.)
As it turns out, Scalia is more tech-savvy than one might have expected from a 74-year-old. He composes his opinions on a computer (unlike Chief Justice Roberts, who writes in longhand). In fact, said Scalia, “I can hardly write in longhand anymore” — which he’s reminded of whenever he has to write a handwritten condolence note.
When he has to take materials home for work, he uses a thumb drive, or accesses the Court computer system remotely. And perhaps most excitingly, as I previously reported on Twitter, Scalia has an iPad! He uses it for working at home; staff members load the parties’ briefs on to it.
I wonder whether the SDFLA judges are more like Breyer or Scalia. I know many of them email from their phones (I actually saw one judge recently in her car emailing as she was driving), but do they Facebook, Twitter, read the blogs, etc?
There's lots more fun stuff at ABT on Scalia, so go check it out.
By this point, the conversation started to shift into the home stretch, so Jan Crawford turned to fun stuff and lighter fare. She asked Justice Scalia: Do you have an iPod?
One might have expected Scalia, whose jurisprudence often involves traveling back in time to when particular constitutional provisions were enacted, to declare that he listens to all his music on a Victrola — but no. As it turns out, he does have an iPod!
This response seemed to catch Crawford by surprise. She asked him if he uploads the music himself; he said that he does, and that his playlist consists mostly of classical music and opera.
(It’s amusing to imagine Justice Scalia, one of the greatest legal minds in our nation, loading up his own iPod like a mere mortal. Couldn’t he ask a staffer to do it, or maybe one of his many grandchildren? But then again, if Justice Elena Kagan can fetch her own pizza, then Justice Scalia can load his own iPod.)
As it turns out, Scalia is more tech-savvy than one might have expected from a 74-year-old. He composes his opinions on a computer (unlike Chief Justice Roberts, who writes in longhand). In fact, said Scalia, “I can hardly write in longhand anymore” — which he’s reminded of whenever he has to write a handwritten condolence note.
When he has to take materials home for work, he uses a thumb drive, or accesses the Court computer system remotely. And perhaps most excitingly, as I previously reported on Twitter, Scalia has an iPad! He uses it for working at home; staff members load the parties’ briefs on to it.
I wonder whether the SDFLA judges are more like Breyer or Scalia. I know many of them email from their phones (I actually saw one judge recently in her car emailing as she was driving), but do they Facebook, Twitter, read the blogs, etc?
There's lots more fun stuff at ABT on Scalia, so go check it out.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wesley Snipes surrenders

The judge said it was time: "The defendant Snipes had a fair trial; he has had a full, fair and thorough review of his conviction and sentence. ... The time has come for the judgment to be enforced," the judge wrote in his 16-page decision.
From Bop.gov: 1. WESLEY TRENT SNIPES 43355-018 48-Black-M UNKNOWN IN TRANSIT
Baby steps
The 9th Circuit will air the Prop 8 case on TV!
According to SCOTUSBlog:
The Ninth Circuit Court agreed on Wednesday to allow live and delayed broadcasting of the Dec. 6 oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — California’s ban on same-sex marriage. In a brief order, the Court cleared live broadcasting by C-SPAN, the cable network. It also gave permission to a San Francisco station, KGO-TV, an ABC affiliate, to provide coverage.
It's something at least. HT: BL
Judge Camp is going to plead guilty today. I'll post the plea agreement as soon as it's public. The Times Herald reports:
Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Camp is scheduled to enter a plea of guilty today in federal court on two misdemeanor counts and one count of aiding and abetting another’s drug possession, according to Newnan attorney Michael Kam, one of the attorneys representing Camp.
What do you think is a fair sentence?
According to SCOTUSBlog:
The Ninth Circuit Court agreed on Wednesday to allow live and delayed broadcasting of the Dec. 6 oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 — California’s ban on same-sex marriage. In a brief order, the Court cleared live broadcasting by C-SPAN, the cable network. It also gave permission to a San Francisco station, KGO-TV, an ABC affiliate, to provide coverage.
It's something at least. HT: BL
Judge Camp is going to plead guilty today. I'll post the plea agreement as soon as it's public. The Times Herald reports:
Senior U.S. District Judge Jack Camp is scheduled to enter a plea of guilty today in federal court on two misdemeanor counts and one count of aiding and abetting another’s drug possession, according to Newnan attorney Michael Kam, one of the attorneys representing Camp.
What do you think is a fair sentence?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
"It's quite clear, we don't have a Facebook page."
That was Justice Breyer at a speech yesterday. More:
If I'm applying the First Amendment, I have to apply it to a world where there's an Internet, and there's Facebook, and there are movies like ... 'The Social Network,' which I couldn't even understand," he said.
Oy.
It doesn't get better:
Although Breyer was making a point about judicial philosophy, he also touched on the court's sometimes limited grasp of technological developments. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts in a public employee privacy case before the court earlier this year tried to figure out the role of a text-messaging service in enabling an exchange between two people.
"I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing," Roberts said. Responded Justice Antonin Scalia: "You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?"
And in a recent case dealing with a California law regulating the sale or rental of violent video games to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed a skeptical state lawyer on whether the v-chip blocking device, rather than a state law, could be used to keep children away from the games.
"V-chips won't work?" Kennedy asked, before the lawyer politely explained they are limited to television programming.
I do agree with Breyer here:
Breyer said he disagrees with those who argue that originalism is "a good system because it will keep the subjective impulses of the judge under control."
"If you want to have history solve everything, let's get nine historians and not nine judges," Breyer said. "And you'll discover that the nine historians are fighting about the various points on which these cases turn anyway."
Adam Liptak from the NY Times has an interesting article today about how vague Supreme Court opinions are and how lower courts are struggling trying to figure them out. Here's a passage from the article dealing with the text messaging case:
In the privacy case that infuriated Justice Scalia and mystified Judge Hull, City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court ruled that a California police department had not violated the constitutional privacy rights of a member of a SWAT team when it audited the text messages on a pager the city had issued him.
Justice Kennedy took the unusual step of accepting three important points in the case only for the sake of argument, and he spent much of his opinion explaining that the court had taken pains to decide as little as possible.
“Cellphone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification,” Justice Kennedy went on. “On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cellphones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own.”
Given that, he said, the case should be decided on grounds so narrow that the decision would have almost no precedential effect. “The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear,” he wrote.
In his concurrence, Justice Scalia decried this approach.
“Applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies may sometimes be difficult, but when it is necessary to decide a case, we have no choice,” he wrote. “The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.”
Many scholars say there is an important place in Supreme Court jurisprudence for incremental rulings, purposeful ambiguity and the delegation of discretion to lower court judges.
“If the goal is to clear up any conflict in the lower court opinions, then you may want a clearer opinion,” Professor Spriggs said. “But a real bright line may create some injustices in the system.”
If I'm applying the First Amendment, I have to apply it to a world where there's an Internet, and there's Facebook, and there are movies like ... 'The Social Network,' which I couldn't even understand," he said.
Oy.
It doesn't get better:
Although Breyer was making a point about judicial philosophy, he also touched on the court's sometimes limited grasp of technological developments. For example, Chief Justice John Roberts in a public employee privacy case before the court earlier this year tried to figure out the role of a text-messaging service in enabling an exchange between two people.
"I thought, you know, you push a button; it goes right to the other thing," Roberts said. Responded Justice Antonin Scalia: "You mean it doesn't go right to the other thing?"
And in a recent case dealing with a California law regulating the sale or rental of violent video games to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy pressed a skeptical state lawyer on whether the v-chip blocking device, rather than a state law, could be used to keep children away from the games.
"V-chips won't work?" Kennedy asked, before the lawyer politely explained they are limited to television programming.
I do agree with Breyer here:
Breyer said he disagrees with those who argue that originalism is "a good system because it will keep the subjective impulses of the judge under control."
"If you want to have history solve everything, let's get nine historians and not nine judges," Breyer said. "And you'll discover that the nine historians are fighting about the various points on which these cases turn anyway."
Adam Liptak from the NY Times has an interesting article today about how vague Supreme Court opinions are and how lower courts are struggling trying to figure them out. Here's a passage from the article dealing with the text messaging case:
In the privacy case that infuriated Justice Scalia and mystified Judge Hull, City of Ontario v. Quon, the Supreme Court ruled that a California police department had not violated the constitutional privacy rights of a member of a SWAT team when it audited the text messages on a pager the city had issued him.
Justice Kennedy took the unusual step of accepting three important points in the case only for the sake of argument, and he spent much of his opinion explaining that the court had taken pains to decide as little as possible.
“Cellphone and text message communications are so pervasive that some persons may consider them to be essential means or necessary instruments for self-expression, even self-identification,” Justice Kennedy went on. “On the other hand, the ubiquity of those devices has made them generally affordable, so one could counter that employees who need cellphones or similar devices for personal matters can purchase and pay for their own.”
Given that, he said, the case should be decided on grounds so narrow that the decision would have almost no precedential effect. “The judiciary risks error by elaborating too fully on the Fourth Amendment implications of emerging technology before its role in society has become clear,” he wrote.
In his concurrence, Justice Scalia decried this approach.
“Applying the Fourth Amendment to new technologies may sometimes be difficult, but when it is necessary to decide a case, we have no choice,” he wrote. “The-times-they-are-a-changin’ is a feeble excuse for disregard of duty.”
Many scholars say there is an important place in Supreme Court jurisprudence for incremental rulings, purposeful ambiguity and the delegation of discretion to lower court judges.
“If the goal is to clear up any conflict in the lower court opinions, then you may want a clearer opinion,” Professor Spriggs said. “But a real bright line may create some injustices in the system.”
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
We're # 2!!
From the New Times: "MIA Ranked Second Most Hellish Airport in U.S. for Second Year Running". We were bested by Newark. Newark!
I actually like the new D terminal, despite the really long walks. The train 3 floors up isn't really convenient. But at least there are some restaurants along the way.
I actually like the new D terminal, despite the really long walks. The train 3 floors up isn't really convenient. But at least there are some restaurants along the way.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Howard Stern & Billy Joel
Okay, I know this is way off topic, but I couldn't get out of my car this morning, listening to Howard Stern interview Billy Joel. It was fantastic hearing him play his music in the studio and explaining how the song was written, etc. Here's one of his best to get your Tuesday morning started:
Okay, one more:
Okay, one more:
Monday, November 15, 2010
Monday morning quick hits
-- No word yet on who has interviews from the JNC. We do know that interviews will take place on November 30.
-- The NY Times covers Miami cyber-criminal Albert Gonzalez in a lengthy article. It's a fascinating piece about how Gonzalez fell back into a life of crime after cooperating with the feds. He explains that he would have been better off just serving his time instead of snitching in the first place.
-- Does anyone really think that we should still have judicial elections? This is ridiculous.
-- First opinions of the Term come out today. Check out ScotusBlog around 10am.
-- Judge Cooke won't be in trial this week. She's in Atlanta sitting as a visiting judge on the 11th Circuit.
UPDATE -- the Supreme Court decided one case, Abbott v. United States, No. 09-479, holding that Section 924(c) and does not preclude the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for different counts of conviction.
-- The NY Times covers Miami cyber-criminal Albert Gonzalez in a lengthy article. It's a fascinating piece about how Gonzalez fell back into a life of crime after cooperating with the feds. He explains that he would have been better off just serving his time instead of snitching in the first place.
-- Does anyone really think that we should still have judicial elections? This is ridiculous.
-- First opinions of the Term come out today. Check out ScotusBlog around 10am.
-- Judge Cooke won't be in trial this week. She's in Atlanta sitting as a visiting judge on the 11th Circuit.
UPDATE -- the Supreme Court decided one case, Abbott v. United States, No. 09-479, holding that Section 924(c) and does not preclude the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for different counts of conviction.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Who's the most at blame here?
The trial judge, the appellate judges, the prosecutor or the defense attorney? Via Volokh, you'll see totally absurd events unfold:
Here’s what happened in the middle of a trial of parents for killing their child through child abuse (felony murder under Georgia law):
The dissent (in Smith v. State, decided Monday by the Georgia Supreme Court) argued that this was prosecutorial misconduct that required reversing the convictions, even though the defense lawyer did not object:
The majority agreed the prosecutor’s behavior was improper, but concluded that the defense lawyer’s decision not to object was a strategic judgment, and therefore not grounds for reversal. (“Arora testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he made a strategic decision not to object to the ‘Happy Birthday’ song during closing argument. Specifically, Arora thought that the ‘Happy Brithday’ song was so ‘preposterous,’ ‘absurd,’ and ‘over the top’ that ‘it would turn the jurors off,’ and that he should not call any more attention to it by objecting to it.”)
HT: MC
Here’s what happened in the middle of a trial of parents for killing their child through child abuse (felony murder under Georgia law):
[T]he prosecutor, in the final moments of her concluding argument on behalf of
the State, “clicked” her fingers at which signal one of the deputies in the
courtroom turned out the lights and an associate prosecutor “popped out a cake
out of a grocery bag” complete with eight candles, which were then lit with a
lighter brought into the courtroom; the prosecutor and her associate then
proceeded to sing to “dear Josef,” i.e., the deceased victim, the celebratory
words to “Happy Birthday.”
The dissent (in Smith v. State, decided Monday by the Georgia Supreme Court) argued that this was prosecutorial misconduct that required reversing the convictions, even though the defense lawyer did not object:
There was no legitimate reason for what the prosecutor did. It was neither
argument nor rebuttal, because there is nothing at all in the record about
birthdays and birthday cakes to raise even the slightest possibility that the
prosecutor was drawing a reasonable inference from the evidence presented or the arguments made by defense counsel. To the contrary, the evidence established that the victim’s family followed an austere lifestyle, including dietary
restrictions, that eliminated the possibility of the victim experiencing the
type of birthday event dramatized by the prosecutor. The prosecutor’s birthday
production was not meant to be argument or rebuttal: it was a theatrical stunt
spun out of pure fantasy. Its sole purpose was to prejudice the rights of
appellants before the jury in an impermissible attempt to invoke the jury’s
passions and divert the jury from the evidence. It offended the dignity and
decorum of the court and violated every precept of professionalism and fair
play. Yet the trial court did absolutely nothing. The event played itself out
without the trial judge performing his duty to maintain decorum in the
courtroom. Moreover, after observing this “‘preposterous’” performance, the
trial court took no steps of any kind to minimize the prejudice. There was no
rebuke to counsel; there was no direction to the jury to ignore the spectacle
they had just witnessed; there was no charge to the jury that sympathy for the
victim was to play no role in their verdict.
[Footnote: I am giving the prosecutor the benefit of the doubt by concluding that her motive for pulling this stunt was simply to evoke sympathy for the victim in an unprofessional attempt to obtain guilty verdicts at any cost, as this motive is less offensive than the other possible motive raised by this case, i.e., that she was
deliberately pandering to the television audience observing the proceedings on
Court TV. See defense counsel’s testimony at the hearing on appellants’ motion
for new trial (“I understand the cameras were rolling and everybody wants to be
Nancy Grace’s friend”).]
The majority agreed the prosecutor’s behavior was improper, but concluded that the defense lawyer’s decision not to object was a strategic judgment, and therefore not grounds for reversal. (“Arora testified at the motion for new trial hearing that he made a strategic decision not to object to the ‘Happy Birthday’ song during closing argument. Specifically, Arora thought that the ‘Happy Brithday’ song was so ‘preposterous,’ ‘absurd,’ and ‘over the top’ that ‘it would turn the jurors off,’ and that he should not call any more attention to it by objecting to it.”)
HT: MC
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
16 Applicants for Judge Huck's seat
Jerald Bagley
Betty Butchko
Mary Barzee
Darrin Gayles
Michael Hanzman
Judy Korchin
Robert Levenson
Peter Lopez
Ana Marie Martinez
Caroline Heck Miller
John O’Sullivan
Robin Rosenbaum
Robert Scola
Barry Seltzer
Will Thomas
John Thornton
I'm struck by the very low number of applicants. Looks like 8 state court judges applied and 3 federal magistrates. Only two private practitioners.
I'll have more soon.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Well maybe, if that tree is DOJ... Here's DOJ saying the fraud guidelines need to be updated (from Main Justice). Federal judges were also piping in, with one calling the loss guidelines "a crock."
I'm sure the DOJ officials at this conference weren't staying in the forest though; they were probably staying at the Ritz. Kosher Meatball Blog (I still don't get the name) has more on this OIG report entitled "A Review of U.S. Attorney Travel that Exceeded the Government Lodging Rate." It's not pretty.
I'm sure the DOJ officials at this conference weren't staying in the forest though; they were probably staying at the Ritz. Kosher Meatball Blog (I still don't get the name) has more on this OIG report entitled "A Review of U.S. Attorney Travel that Exceeded the Government Lodging Rate." It's not pretty.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Miami Herald cites SDFLA and SFLawyers!
Pretty cool. Meantime, I can't get the CHiPs theme song out of my head.
Over the weekend, Jay Weaver profiled Eric Bustillo, the SEC chief. It's a nice piece. Here's the intro:
A product of Jesuit schools in Latin America, Eric Bustillo entered Tulane University in fall 1981.
Within months, his bright future would take a dark turn: He and his friends were returning to the New Orleans campus one night when their car swerved to avoid another and slammed into a tree. Bustillo's spinal cord was severed, leaving him paralyzed.
Today, as he sits in a wheelchair in his corner office overlooking Biscayne Bay, Bustillo displays only optimism. A lawyer for more than 20 years, he is director of the Miami regional office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in charge of protecting investors in a region riddled with fraud, from old-fashioned boiler rooms to newfangled Ponzi schemes.
``I could have wallowed in my misfortune, or worked hard, educated myself and not let it become an obstacle,'' said Bustillo, 45, born in New Jersey to Cuban exile parents who moved the family around to Venezuela, Panama and other countries.
Within months, his bright future would take a dark turn: He and his friends were returning to the New Orleans campus one night when their car swerved to avoid another and slammed into a tree. Bustillo's spinal cord was severed, leaving him paralyzed.
Today, as he sits in a wheelchair in his corner office overlooking Biscayne Bay, Bustillo displays only optimism. A lawyer for more than 20 years, he is director of the Miami regional office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in charge of protecting investors in a region riddled with fraud, from old-fashioned boiler rooms to newfangled Ponzi schemes.
``I could have wallowed in my misfortune, or worked hard, educated myself and not let it become an obstacle,'' said Bustillo, 45, born in New Jersey to Cuban exile parents who moved the family around to Venezuela, Panama and other countries.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Looks like Ponch is going to have a few solo missions on the California Highway Patrol for awhile

SFLawyers previously covered Larry Wilcox's (Jon Baker in CHiPs) case here. He actually pleaded guilty before Judge Cohn today. Here's the actual plea agreement. He's obviously cooperating in this securities fraud case and his sentence is capped at 5 years. He agreed to all of the enhancements in his agreement for a one month conspiracy in 2009, including amount of loss, abuse of trust, sophisticated means, officer/director, and he agreed not to ask for a variance or appeal. So, he will have to hope the government goes to bat for him on his cooperation. If not, he's looking at 2 years by my count.
Friday
Finally, some good cool weather.
Justice Stevens gave this cool speech -- and he uses trilogies too:
Today I plan to say a few words about memorials, mosques, and monuments. Like Lieutenant Ichikawa, who is being honored today, I served in the Pacific theater during World War II. The Empire of Japan was our principle enemy in that theatre. Lieutenant Ichikawa, like literally thousands of other patriotic Japanese Americans including residents of Hawai'i as well as residents of the Mainland -made a magnificent contribution to our war effort there.
In other news:
Gary Kravitz, Murray Greenberg, and Nathaniel Persily of Columbia Law School, along with the St. Thomas Law Review have put together a symposium next weekend (November 12-13, 2010) entitled Bush v. Gore: A DecadeLater. Panelists inclue Greenberg, Persily, Ben Ginsberg, Kendall Coffey, Ben Kuehne, Joe Klock, Jim Bopp, Justice Fred Lewis, Judge Nikki Clark, Jeff Erlich, Paul Hancock, Kim Tucker and an academic panel including Jim Gibson, Nelson Lund and Edward Foley.
This event will be held at St. Thomas and admission is free. The symposium has been approved for a maximum of 7 CLE credits.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
Friday, November 12, 2010
Welcoming Remarks 4:00-4:15 p.m.
The View from the Litigants 4:15-5:45 p.m.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:00 a.m.
The View from the Administrators 9:00-10:30 a.m.
The View from the Bench 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Luncheon Panel-
The View from Academia 12:15-2:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks 2:00-2:15 p.m.
Registration is required prior to November 10, 2010. Please contact the Law Review Office at lawrev@stu.edu or phone (305) 623-2380.
St. Thomas Law Review
St. Thomas University School of Law
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
Justice Stevens gave this cool speech -- and he uses trilogies too:
Today I plan to say a few words about memorials, mosques, and monuments. Like Lieutenant Ichikawa, who is being honored today, I served in the Pacific theater during World War II. The Empire of Japan was our principle enemy in that theatre. Lieutenant Ichikawa, like literally thousands of other patriotic Japanese Americans including residents of Hawai'i as well as residents of the Mainland -made a magnificent contribution to our war effort there.
In other news:
Gary Kravitz, Murray Greenberg, and Nathaniel Persily of Columbia Law School, along with the St. Thomas Law Review have put together a symposium next weekend (November 12-13, 2010) entitled Bush v. Gore: A DecadeLater. Panelists inclue Greenberg, Persily, Ben Ginsberg, Kendall Coffey, Ben Kuehne, Joe Klock, Jim Bopp, Justice Fred Lewis, Judge Nikki Clark, Jeff Erlich, Paul Hancock, Kim Tucker and an academic panel including Jim Gibson, Nelson Lund and Edward Foley.
This event will be held at St. Thomas and admission is free. The symposium has been approved for a maximum of 7 CLE credits.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS:
Friday, November 12, 2010
Welcoming Remarks 4:00-4:15 p.m.
The View from the Litigants 4:15-5:45 p.m.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:00 a.m.
The View from the Administrators 9:00-10:30 a.m.
The View from the Bench 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Luncheon Panel-
The View from Academia 12:15-2:00 p.m.
Closing Remarks 2:00-2:15 p.m.
Registration is required prior to November 10, 2010. Please contact the Law Review Office at lawrev@stu.edu or phone (305) 623-2380.
St. Thomas Law Review
St. Thomas University School of Law
16401 NW 37th Avenue
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Happy Halloween

This press release found its way to my inbox: DEFENDANT CHARGED WITH IMPORTING CANDY LACED WITH COCAINE ON FLIGHT TO FORT LAUDERDALE.
Well, I had to read more:
According to the criminal complaint, on November 1, 2010, Perez arrived into Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport on a flight from Bogota, Colombia. Perez proceeded to the CBP enclosure and presented himself and his luggage to CBP officers for inspection and entry into the United States. Within the luggage claimed by Perez, there were multiple paper shopping bags containing different articles of clothing. In addition, Perez claimed bags containing various types of candies. CBP discovered that the bottom of these bags contained cocaine. Upon this discovery, CBP gave closer inspection to the bags of candy claimed by Perez. CBP field-tested one of each type of candy and found that each type of candy field tested positive for cocaine. In total, CBP determined that Perez was in possession of approximately 9.6 kilograms of cocaine. Subsequently, ICE special agents arrested Torres Perez on the federal criminal charges.
Yikes, that's a lot of candy!
"If Mr. Rothstein thinks setting up Mr. Settineri is going to get him a get-out-of-jail card, he's sadly mistaken.''
That was Jeff Weiner after Judge Cohen sentenced his client Roberto Settineri to four years (via the Miami Herald):
Defense attorney Jeffrey Weiner and federal prosecutors recommended that Settineri receive four years' imprisonment at his sentencing Wednesday morning in Fort Lauderdale.
The U.S. District Judge James Cohn called it a ``fair resolution.'' The maximum is five years.
In exchange for his guilty plea in August, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cynthia Stone dropped the original conspiracy charges, which carried up to 20 years in prison.
After Settineri's sentencing, Weiner said that his client could actually be released from prison in about two years. Settineri received credit for eight months of detention since his arrest in March. The judge also allowed him to enter a 500-hour alcohol abuse program in prison, which, if completed, would cut an additional year off his sentence.
Weiner said that while his client said nothing at his sentencing, Settineri took full responsibility and apologized for his wrongdoing in a court filing.
``His life was fine until he made this terrible mistake in judgment,'' Weiner said. ``He thought he was helping a friend in need. He's embarrassed about it.''
Defense attorney Jeffrey Weiner and federal prosecutors recommended that Settineri receive four years' imprisonment at his sentencing Wednesday morning in Fort Lauderdale.
The U.S. District Judge James Cohn called it a ``fair resolution.'' The maximum is five years.
In exchange for his guilty plea in August, Assistant U.S. Attorney Cynthia Stone dropped the original conspiracy charges, which carried up to 20 years in prison.
After Settineri's sentencing, Weiner said that his client could actually be released from prison in about two years. Settineri received credit for eight months of detention since his arrest in March. The judge also allowed him to enter a 500-hour alcohol abuse program in prison, which, if completed, would cut an additional year off his sentence.
Weiner said that while his client said nothing at his sentencing, Settineri took full responsibility and apologized for his wrongdoing in a court filing.
``His life was fine until he made this terrible mistake in judgment,'' Weiner said. ``He thought he was helping a friend in need. He's embarrassed about it.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)