College Student to Plead Guilty for Obama Facebook Threats

Hi folks, SFL here.

My knowledge of crim law is limited to booking crim pro in law school about forty thousand years ago, plus sitting through multiple plea hearings as the lawyers wait to finally get in front of a federal judge on one of our civil matters.

Speaking of plea hearings, this kid is set to plea out on his cute Facebook musings which evidently involved our President:

A Miami college student plans to plead guilty in federal court to threatening President Barack Obama on Facebook.

A plea hearing is set for Wednesday afternoon for 20-year-old Joaquin Amador Serrapio Jr.

His attorney says he intends to plead guilty to one count of threatening to kill or harm the president.

Federal prosecutors say Serrapio posted threats on Facebook in February when Obama was in Miami to give a speech.

The posts threatened to put a bullet in the president's head and asked if anyone wanted to help in a presidential assassination.

Oh, the kids today and their social media -- why don't they want to go outside and throw the football around anymore?

(You can read the probable cause affidavit here.)

 

Feeling the Heat

The "other" Marcus in for the King.  I'll try not to pull a James Jones this week.  Let's Go Heat! 

I SPY

DOM asked us to help out this week and we've put together a little Supreme Court update. The Supreme Court agreed to return to the arena of terrorism Monday when they granted cert in 
Clapper v. Amnesty International  which challenged the constitutionality of  the Foreign Service Intelligence Surveillance Act. 
The second circuit found that the plaintiffs- a collection of lawyers, journalists and the odd activist- had standing to challenge the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it is this point only that is on appeal. The second circuit then  refused to re-hear the case en banc, prompting Chief Judge Jacobs to issue a rare dissent on the denial to re-hear the case en banc.
The CJ's attack on the veracity of the  plaintiffs/lawyers is startling, and the CJ's comparison of the plaintiffs to a disturbed pro se plaintiff suing the CIA for thought control is downright amusing. From the CJ's dissent (you can read it all here): 


      An assortment of lawyers, journalists and activists, 
and organizations representing such people, facially  challenge the constitutionality of § 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”... Their claim is that the FAA lowers the standards for obtaining warrants to surveil foreign persons abroad, which has caused the plaintiffs, who are not foreigners, to develop a reasonable fear of being surveilled when communicating with foreigners around the world who are their journalistic sources, clients, human rights victims, witnesses and so on--all of whom are, in plaintiffs’ estimation, potential objects of surveillance. The plaintiffs contend that this fear compels them to communicate with their clients or foreign contacts only in  person, at such trouble and expense as to constitute injury that supports standing. ..
To support the otherwise-mysterious idea of injury to these plaintiffs (and causation), the panel opinion relies entirely (even credulously) on affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs, describing their supposed anxieties. But these affidavits employ all the lawyer’s arts to convey a devious impression...
At the risk of being obvious, the purpose of this lawsuit is litigation for its own sake--for these lawyers to claim a role in policy-making for which they were not appointed or elected, for which they are not fitted by experience, and for which they are not accountable. As best I can see, the only purpose of this litigation is for counsel and plaintiffs to act out their fantasy of persecution, to validate their pretensions to policy expertise, to make themselves consequential rather than marginal, and to raise funds for self-sustaining litigation. In short, counsel’s and plaintiffs’ only perceptible interest is to carve out for themselves an influence over  government policy--an interest that the law of standing  forecloses. For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the plaintiffs suffered no injury, and certainly none that can  be redressed by this Court. In part, that is a function of the frivolous nature of the claim. In that respect, it bears similarity to a pro se plaintiff’s allegation that the CIA is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar. But, as to the standing analysis, there is this difference: The pro se plaintiff is actually suffering, is truly hoping for redress, and is not bringing suit as a  pretext to weigh in on government policy. 
Rumpole says: Wow. It's not often the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals writes with  sympathy for pro se plaintiffs suing the CIA for thought control. "Politics and standing make strange bedfellows, eh?" 

1. 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Lawyers behaving badly

Everyone's all aflutter about the depo drawings leading to sanctions against lawyers.  Here's the order by Judge Altonaga. 

South Florida Lawyers and ATL cover the story. 

Civil lawyers are so funny.  All this fighting about discovery.  Try coming to criminal land -- no depos, no witness statements, no nothing.  And when something does get buried, no sanctions are allowed. 

Anyway, I'm taking the week off from blogging next week, and leave you in the capable hands of Rumpole, SFL, Jeff Marcus, and a potential mystery blogger.  If something really exciting does come up, I'll pop my head in.

For now, I'm going to go and try to get in on some of this Facebook action.

Have a nice weekend.

"There are consequences for disobeying the word of God."

That was Christian school administrator John Ellis when he fired a teacher for conceiving a child three weeks before marriage. Oy vey.

 The 11th Circuit explained that there are also consequences for violating the law.  From Thomson Reuters:

Hamilton sued the school in 2010 under a federal law that bars discrimination based on pregnancy, seeking compensation for lost wages and emotional distress. A federal district court ruled in the school's favor before a trial, finding that Hamilton failed to establish that she was fired for her pregnancy rather than moral concerns over her premarital sex. But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit disagreed on Wednesday.
The court pointed to evidence that the school was more concerned about Hamilton's request for maternity leave than her admission to having premarital sex. Ennis expressed concern over finding a replacement teacher, Hamilton testified.
"Hamilton has established a genuine issue of material fact about the reason that Southland fired her. The ultimate issue is one for a jury to decide," Judge Edward Carnes wrote for the unanimous panel, sending the case back to the lower court for a trial.
At a late stage in the appeal, Southland had tried to argue that the separation between church and state prevents courts from applying discrimination laws to churches' employment decisions. The school pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which upheld religious groups' right to choose their ministerial employees without government interference.
But the 11th Circuit found that the school had waited too long to raise that argument and even admitted in a court filing that it did not consider Hamilton a "minister" with religious duties.
David Gibbs, a lawyer for Southland Christian School, said in a statement that he would defend the school's religious rights before the district court. The school "is protected under the First Amendment to hire and fire its ministerial employees according to its sincerely-held religious beliefs," he said.

I like the way Judge Carnes crisply starts the opinion (which was joined by Judges Martin and Jordan):

A woman of childbearing age was hired as a teacher at a small Christian school. Then she got pregnant, married, and fired. In that order. Then she filed a lawsuit. She lost on summary judgment. This is her appeal.

Wednesday News & Notes

1.  Is Scalia becoming too much of an advocate on the bench?  Via Bloomberg:

In January, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia accused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of “high-handedness.” He was just getting warmed up.
Over the next 3 1/2 months, Scalia asked whether federal immigration policy was designed to “please Mexico,” fired off 12 questions and comments in 15 minutes at a government lawyer in a case involving overtime pay, and dismissed part of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s defense of President Barack Obama’s health-care law as “extraordinary.”


Scalia’s tone this year, particularly in cases involving the Obama administration, is raising new criticism over the temperament of a justice who has always relished the give-and- take of the Supreme Court’s public sessions. Some lawyers say Scalia, a 1986 appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, is crossing the line that separates tough scrutiny from advocacy.
“His questions have been increasingly confrontational,” said Charles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who served as Reagan’s top Supreme Court advocate. While the justice has always asked “pointed” questions, in the health-care case “he came across much more like an advocate.”

2.  Rusty Hardin is crossing the Roger Clemens' snitch (via BLT):

Cross-examination began late Tuesday with Rusty Hardin, Clemens' top lawyer, noting how "subdued" and "down" McNamee has appeared on the witness stand the past couple of days.
"Do you consider yourself a victim?" Hardin asked McNamee.
"A victim of my own doing," he said.

 Meantime, the jurors are sleeping through portions of the case, and are getting booted (via the NY Times):

But it seems that for all the care and caution that went into scrutinizing the Washingtonians who would end up determining Clemens’s fate, one fundamental question was overlooked: can you stay awake during the trial?

The trial of Clemens is in its fifth week — with Brian McNamee, the government’s star witness, now on the stand — and already, two jurors have been dismissed for falling asleep.

The first juror excused by the judge, Reggie Walton of United States District Court, was a 27-year-old chronically unemployed man who was let go last week. During juror questioning, he told prosecutors that he would “rather be asleep” than serve on the jury. In the end, he tried to do both but failed.

Walton then warned the remaining 15 jurors and alternates: “Stay alert. We don’t want to lose anybody else.”

But another juror, a young woman who works as a cashier at a supermarket, failed to heed that warning. She nodded off on Monday — the day McNamee, Clemens’s former trainer, began his testimony — and was dismissed by Walton on Tuesday.

It was just last week that Walton scolded the prosecutors and the defense lawyers for asking too many unnecessary questions and boring the jurors so much that they had begun to discuss the case among themselves, which they were told not to do. He even threatened to put a time limit on the trial.

3.  Bond condition: read and write book reports.  No joke (via SF Chronicle):

One of three men indicted for allegedly trying to sell a grenade launcher during a deal that led to gunfire in Richmond was ordered released on bond Monday by a federal judge, who allowed him to remain free so long as he reads each day and completes book reports.
Over the objections of federal prosecutors, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted a request by 23-year-old Otis Mobley Jr. to be released before trial. She ordered him to "read and complete book reports," spending an hour every day on books and at least a half an hour writing.
The judge said she plans to provide a reading list for Mobley as he awaits trial.

4.  Is John Edwards going to testify (via Washington Post):

Many people watching the case believed Edwards would testify so the jury could hear directly from the former U.S. senator and trial lawyer, who had a reputation for his ability to sway jurors. But putting Edwards on the stand was also a gamble: It would have exposed him to withering cross-examination about his past lies and personal failings.
Most experts were convinced calling Hunter to testify would have dredged up more negatives and lies. The defense also elected not to question Edwards’ oldest daughter, Cate, who has sat behind Edwards nearly every day of the trial and could have helped humanize him.

UPDATE -- He didn't testify.

Americans for Immigrant Justice expanding to DC

They used to be called FIAC -- Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center.  From the new and improved website:

AI Justice was founded in 1996 as the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center when federal funding restrictions prevented Legal Services Corporation (LSC) agencies from representing most immigrants, unless they already had legal status.  The organization was cofounded by its current executive director, Cheryl Little, Esq., along with two Catholic nuns, Sr. Maureen Kelleher RSHM and Sr. Catherine Cassidy HM.  In its first year of operation, the staff inherited over 3,000 cases that LSC agencies in Florida were no longer allowed to handle.
Since its inception, AI Justice has represented immigrants from all over the world.  Beginning with ten employees and a $400,000 budget, it has grown to a staff of 38 and a $3.5 million budget.  Since 1996, its lawyers have closed over 80,000 cases, and AI Justice has become a national trendsetter in the immigration field.

 Holly Skolnick is the current President and one of the leaders, helping to expand the group to DC (where she started as a public defender).  She's a good choice as she has a long history with public service (President of the Greenberg Fellowship Foundation and a member of UM's Center for Ethics and Public Service).

Monday Morning

Nothing much new to report....

The Heat looked pretty good yesterday, even after Bosh got hurt.  Indiana is pesky but shouldn't be a problem.

Rumpole covered the FACDL banquet.  It was a very nice event at the Biltmore.  Judge Gold was honored as was Judge Hubbart.  Roy Black did a nice job introducing Hubbart and explained what it was like to be a PD before he took over (i.e., no jury trials and only part-time PDs).

Barack Obama may be the first president in 30 years to have more judicial vacancies at the end of his first term than when he started.

The John Edwards trial is still going.  Will Rielle take the stand?

Anyone in trial down here?

Judges read blogs

Even Justices do:

Supreme Court justices – most recently Elena Kagan – routinely cite Bashman's blog as a must-read, and visitors to the chambers of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. have spied How Appealing displayed on his computer screen. A federal appeals judge once chided a prosecutor in open court for not following the blog and not knowing about a case Bashman had cited.

Judge Jordan answers questions at the Bankers Club

It was a good talk -- Judge Jordan is extremely patient and answered everyone's questions, even the silly ones that drag on and on where lawyers just want to hear themselves say something.  Judge Marcus even joined in on one answer and explained that the judges on the court do not engage in "collective bargaining." 

While we had two circuit judges in attendance (which is about 20% of the court!), there is a fight brewing over President Obama's most recent nomination to the 11th Circuit -- Jill Pryor.  From the AJC:

The 11th Circuit opening, created by Judge Stanley Birch in August 2010, also has been declared a judicial emergency. The circuit has jurisdiction over cases in Georgia, Florida and Alabama.
No pick for any of the vacancies has made it to the committee hearing stage and the process typically slows in an election year, with Republicans hoping for a new administration with more friendly nominees.
But the tango between Georgia’s senators and the White House has been odd even by the standards of the often contentious judicial nomination process, according to longtime observers.
Chambliss and Isakson refuse to say why they are blocking President Barack Obama's nomination of Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor for the 11^th Circuit appeals court, after both senators said they would approve her if she were nominated to the district court.
In January Chambliss and Isakson wrote to the White House saying they would approve Pryor and U.S. Magistrate Linda Walker for the district court openings, and Atlanta attorney Mark Cohen for the appeals slot.
Obama nominated Walker for the district court judgeship in early 2011, but as is often the case with multiple nominees from the same state the White House demanded she be included as a package with federal public defender Natasha Perdew Silas, whom Isakson and Chambliss blocked without giving a reason.
The Senate returned both nominees to the White House at year's end, and Obama has not renominated anyone for the district court openings.
The two senators also have not given "blue slips" to the Senate Judiciary Committee to allow a hearing on Pryor, a longstanding courtesy for home-state senators. Representatives of both senators said they do not comment on judicial nominees.
“They need to explain publicly why they’re holding up her nomination, which has been vacant for a long time,” said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias, who studies the confirmation process. “They’re sort of turning the Constitution on its head. The senators don’t nominate and give the president a chance to reject.”
Party politics is a potential motive. According to campaign finance records, Pryor often donates to Democrats, and last year she gave $2,500 to Obama’s re-election campaign.
Cohen, the senators’ preferred appellate pick, served as executive counsel and chief of staff to Gov. Zell Miller.

Glenn Sugameli calls out the senators:

Glenn Sugameli, who tracks judicial nominations for the environmental group Defenders of Wildlife, noted that Georgia's two senators were outspoken in opposing filibusters of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. In a 2005 joint op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Chambliss and Isakson wrote “denial of an up-or-down vote goes against basic principles of fairness."
Sugameli said the turnaround is striking, considering that the senators are preventing a hearing, much less a filibuster.
“To pervert that into a situation where you’re essentially demanding the right to make all of the nominations for all of the slots is outrageous, unwarranted, and ... it really hurts the people not only in Georgia but in the rest of the circuit for whom justice delayed is going to continue to be justice denied,” Sugameli said.

State vs. Feds

Who doesn't love a good fight between the federal and state governments?  Yesterday, the en banc First Circuit decided a fascinating case in which the Government of Rhode Island refused to turn over a murder suspect to the feds because they were seeking the death penalty.  The Providence Journal has more:

If Chafee were to prevail, "Pleau could be permanently immune from prosecution ...," the judges wrote, continuing, "Instead of a place of confinement, the state prison would become a refuge against federal charges."
Chafee had refused to surrender Pleau based on what he called Rhode Island's longstanding opposition to the death penalty. He could face the death penalty for his crimes under federal law.

And here's your moment of zen for the day:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Newt Gingrich & Mitt Romney Alliance Analogies
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Jackie Shapiro hosts Mark Wahlberg and the Rock...

... during filming of Pain and Gain, a film based on this Miami New Times article.

Here are some pictures:

May the 4th...

...be with you.

"You're taking positions that are totally absurd to me."

That was Judge Reggie Walton to the prosecutors during the Roger Clemens' trial yesterday.  What got him so upset?  According to SI:

Pettitte, Clemens' longtime friend and former teammate, was on the stand for a second day in the trial that is to determine whether Clemens lied at a 2008 congressional deposition and hearing when he denied taking steroids and human growth hormone.
During cross-examination, Clemens' lawyers got exactly the answers they wanted.
Might Pettitte have misunderstood when Clemens supposedly acknowledged using human growth hormone to Pettitte in a conversation during the 1999-2000 offseason?
"I could have,'' Pettitte answered.
Is it fair to say there is a "50-50'' chance that Pettitte misunderstood?
"I'd say that's fair,'' Pettitte replied.
The government tried to salvage their witness, but prosecutor Steven Durham's follow-up questions were lacking - at least in the minds of Clemens' lawyers and, more importantly, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. Clemens' lawyers moved to strike Pettitte's testimony about the 1999-2000 conversation as "insufficiently definitive.''
The judge seemed to agree, openly wondering why Pettitte wasn't asked for a current, definitive recollection of the conversation. He repeatedly berated Durham, who was also part of the government team last July when prosecutors showed the jury a snippet of inadmissible videotaped evidence, prompting the mistrial.
"I was waiting for you to ask, and you didn't ask that,'' Walton said.
"My understanding is that (Pettitte's) position is at this time, he is conflicted. ... His testimony now before the jury is `I don't know,''' the judge continued. "I thought that what we would hear is, `Mr. Pettitte, currently, what is your memory of what Mr. Clemens told you back in 1999?'''
In other words, the jury might have concluded that maybe Pettitte did "misremember'' the conversation, as Clemens has claimed.
Durham tried to contend that he addressed the matter in a different way. The defense will file a brief in support of its position, and Walton could rule on Pettitte's testimony as early as Thursday.

It didn't get much better with the next witness:

Prosecutors had planned to call Steve Fehr, an attorney for the Major League Baseball players' union. Fehr was supposed to help show, in an indirect manner, that Clemens was aware that former Sen. George Mitchell had tried to contact Clemens when putting together the 2007 Mitchell Report on drug use in baseball. Clemens was named in the report, prompting Congress to call the February 2008 hearing at which Clemens testified.
Walton said he didn't understand what Fehr's testimony would accomplish and that it could amount to "trampling on the attorney-client privilege'' because it relies on Fehr's conversations with Clemens' lawyers. Walton said the government should use other evidence to show that Clemens was aware of the Mitchell request.
"Maybe I'm dense,'' Walton said, his voice rising. "I'm starting to think that maybe I just don't understand the law - because you're taking positions that are totally absurd to me.''
The government kept trying to argue its case, but Walton would have none of it.
"You're beating a dead horse, and you're not going to make it come alive,'' Walton said. "You're not going to win this one.''
Nevertheless, Walton said he would allow the government to do some research and file a brief before making a final decision.

11th Circuit sides with Hustler

Yesterday we discussed dirty words.  Today Hustler: The case involves the publication of 20-year old nude photos of Nancy Benoit after she and her child were murdered by her husband Chris Benoit.  The jury awarded $19 million in punis against Hustler, which the judge reduced to $250k. 

The 11th Circuit said no punitives were permissible:
 

There was substantial, consistent, and uncontroverted testimony from numerous LFP employees showing that they honestly and reasonably (albeit mistakenly) believed at the time that the photographs fit under the newsworthiness exception to the right of publicity.

***

The strongest evidence supporting our conclusion that this mistake on LFP’s part was reasonable is the fact that the district court in this case initially dismissed Toffoloni’s case because the court agreed with LFP that the photographs met the newsworthiness exception. Toffoloni v. LFP Publ’g Grp., No. 1:08-cv-421-TWT, 2008 WL 4559866, at *2-3 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2008). Although that decision of the district court was ultimately reversed in Hustler I, we do not believe that publishers should be held to a higher standard than that of the learned district judge.

"Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies..."

"...For false witnesses are risen up against me."  That was The defense attorney for Colombo crime family street boss Thomas “Tommy Shots” Gioeli during his closing arguments yesterday.  The NY Post has more:

Perlmutter implored the Brooklyn federal court jury to be careful in weighing the source of the evidence amassed against Gioeli.
"You must evaluate the credibility of these witnesses to decide if you can believe them," the attorney said.
That's when the spiritual tone evaporated in the silent courtroom, as Perlmutter described the ex-mobsters who testified against Gioeli as government witnesses, calling them "untrustworthy, unreliable, desperate individuals."
"You know what else they are? Rats!" Perlmutter said of the FBI informants.
Furthermore, even if Gioeli admittedly was at the scene at one of the premeditated mob hits, the attorney argued, that doesn't mean that he played a role in the killing.
"Simply because he was there, he is not guilty of that murder," Perlmutter said.

2.  The NY Times discusses bad words in the Supreme Court:

The most versatile of the classic Anglo-Saxon swear words has, diligent research reveals, made just one appearance in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The cursing, in 1971, probably won the case, which concerned the prosecution of a vulgar protest against the draft during the Vietnam War. By repeating the word in court, the protester’s lawyer showed that it could have a role in public discourse. Over the next two decades or so, the word was used in nine Supreme Court decisions, typically in quotations of something a criminal had said. Its last appearance was in 1993.

Popular culture has grown coarser over the years, and the word is commonplace in hit songs and ubiquitous on cable television. The Supreme Court has moved in the opposite direction.

The justices do not want to hear the word even when the case before them turns on it. In arguments in 2008 and 2011, they considered two aspects of a case about whether the government may punish the broadcasting of four-letter words from four-letter celebrities like Bono and Cher, but no lawyer or justice said the words. When an appeals court first heard the case in 2006, judges uttered and examined the key word, considering whether its every permutation had a sexual connotation. 

3.  Looks like John Goodman is going to get a new trial.  Roy is doing a great job (via the PBP):

One juror in the panel that convicted polo mogul John Goodman of DUI manslaughter last month said he was not convinced of Goodman's guilt.

Juror Michael St. John made the revelation this afternoon as Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath interviewed the six jurors and two alternates on the case in response to allegations of juror misconduct in the case surrounding the Feb. 2010 drowning death of 23-year-old Scott Wilson. St. John said that he was pressured by other jurors to find Goodman guilty of DUI manslaughter.
"So when I asked you at the end of the case whether the verdict was your verdict, and you looked at me and said yes, why did you say that?" Colbath asked St. John.
"I didn't look at anyone," St. John responded. "I didn't look at him, I didn't look at any of the other jurors. I just looked at the floor when you asked me."

4.  Former NFL players are charged with ID-theft (via Jay Weaver):

 Three former National Football League players have been arrested by the FBI on federal charges in connection with an alleged scheme to steal people’s identities and file false tax returns in others’ names to collect thousands of dollars in refunds, according to authorities.

The three ex-NFL players charged with defrauding the federal government and ID theft are: William Joseph, a University of Miami defensive tackle drafted in the first round by the New York Giants in 2003; Michael Bennett, a University of Wisconsin running back also drafted in the first round by the Minnesota Vikings in 2001; and Louis Gachelin, a Syracuse University defensive tackle who was drafted by the New England Patriots in 2004.

Joseph and Gachelin are Miami natives; Bennett was born in Milwaukee. All three were questioned after their arrests Monday by FBI agents at the bureau’s North Miami Beach regional office. They were then transferred to the Federal Detention Center in downtown Miami for court appearances Tuesday afternoon before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Dube, according to the clerk’s office. Details of the alleged scheme are expected to be disclosed in a criminal complaint to be released later Tuesday.

Did secretary at grand jury suite violate grand jury secrecy?

1.     Jay Weaver covers Tamika Jasper-Barbary's motion to dismiss by Scott Srebnick before Judge Scola.  Looks like she has a good shot to prevail:

 Now, her defense attorney says he has uncovered a lack of evidence that could sink the government’s case against her.
The snitch — a convicted trafficker identified only as “L.B.” in the indictment — never testified before a federal grand jury, nor did a panel ever convene to hear his testimony. So, even if Jasper-Barbary had told her husband about L.B., she couldn’t have violated the grand jury’s secrecy or broken any laws, her attorney says.
“I think the government is playing games with this indictment,” Miami attorney Scott Srebnick told U.S. District Judge Robert Scola at a hearing last week. “Now we know there was no Miami grand jury sitting in this case.”
Court documents show prosecutors don’t dispute these facts. They acknowledge that a late November email shows Jasper-Barbary arranged a federal drug agent’s one-on-one interview with L.B. for the following month in a room of the grand jury suite at the downtown Miami federal courthouse.

If there was no grand jury and Jasper-Barbary had no duty of secrecy, then what's the deal:

Srebnick countered that Jasper-Barbary — who made $57,000 a year before her unpaid suspension in January — was not included in the seven categories of people who are obligated under federal law to maintain grand jury secrecy.
“There is no allegation that she or anyone else sought to influence L.B. to provide false evidence to the grand jury, or to avoid the grand jury altogether, or that she intended any harm to L.B,” Srebnick argued in a motion. “The only thing she allegedly did was disclose information, which is not a crime absent a legal duty to maintain secrecy.”

There are also claims of misconduct:

He argued that a Drug Enforcement Administration agent gave “misleading testimony” before a Fort Pierce federal grand jury, which returned the indictment against Jasper-Barbary, her husband and seven others in January. The agent affirmed that the main target of the investigation, Barbary, learned from his wife that Bennett was “being brought before a federal grand jury.”
But that was not the truth, Srebnick argues in court papers, because Bennett was never even scheduled to appear before the grand jury. As a result, the agent’s testimony “infected” the Fort Pierce panel, which proceeded to adopt the “government’s theory” that “Jasper-Barbary joined the drug conspiracies through her alleged obstruction of justice.”

My favorite part of the story:

Agents also found a book in the couple’s home. The title: Busted by the Feds: The Book for Defendants Facing Federal Prosecution.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/28/2773405_p2/indicted-miami-grand-jury-worker.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/28/2773405_p2/indicted-miami-grand-jury-worker.html#storylink=cpy

2.  And by the way, in case you didn't see the post from late Friday evening, the JNC cut the judgeship applicants to three:

Robin Rosenberg
William Thomas
John Thornton

All three are state judges and they are all really good. It will be interesting to see who the President selects. 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/28/2773405/indicted-miami-grand-jury-worker.html?story_link=email_msg#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/28/2773405/indicted-miami-grand-jury-worker.html?story_link=email_msg#storylink=cpy

BREAKING -- JNC cuts list to 3 for federal judgeship

The three finalists for the Ft. Pierce slot are:

Robin Rosenberg
William Thomas
John Thornton


Congrats!

Federal Friday

Lots happening on this Friday in the SDFLA -- all of the federal practitioners and judges were in West Palm Beach at the Federal Bench and Bar Conference, with one exception.  Congrats to Adam Rabin for putting together a really nice event and to Judge Jordan for his remarks during the lunch hour. 

The one exception is that the Federal JNC members weren't there as they were interviewing the applicants for the Ft. Pierce open seat.  As soon as I hear who made the cut, I will post.  Tipsters, please email me and I will keep it confidential as always.

Judge Ungaro rules drug testing of state employees unconstitutional

The well-written 37-page order is here. 

From the Palm Beach Post:

Miami U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro Thursday morning ruling that random, suspicionless testing of some 85,000 workers violates the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures also raises doubts about a new state law quietly signed by Scott this spring allowing the governor’s agency heads to require urine tests of new and existing workers.
“To be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, a search ordinarily must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing,” Ungaro wrote in her order issued this morning, citing previous U.S. Supreme Court orders which decided that urine tests are considered government searches.
Scott issued an executive order requiring random drug testing of new hires and all state workers after he took office last year. But he suspended the tests in June after labor unions and the ACLU challenged the order, objecting that the tests are a violation of the constitutional right to protection from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Instead, Scott limited his order for all but corrections officers pending the outcome of the Miami case.
***
Ungaro rejected Scott’s lawyers’ arguments and data showing that about 1 percent of workers at certain agencies who underwent the drug screens tested positive. And she was not persuaded by the governor’s arguments that private sector drug testing shows widespread drug use among workers. She also did not agree that prospective or current state workers could seek employment elsewhere if they object to the tests. New hires, but not current state workers switching jobs, could be required to take the tests, Ungaro ruled.
“All of the upheld drug-testing policies were tailored to address a specific, serious problem. In contrast, the rationale for the Governor’s policy consists of broad prognostications concerning taxpayer savings, improved public service, and reductions in health and safety risks that result from a drug-free workplace,” Ungaro wrote.

Congrats to the ACLU on a great victory.  The governor said he will appeal.

TD Bank admits to false statement; changes lawyers (UPDATED)

UPDATE -- Although the SFBJ says that TD Bank acknowledged making a "false statement," that is an overstatement.  The pleading that Greenberg Traurig filed says that it found a document that it previously said did not exist.  It did not say that it or the bank did anything intentionally.  Judge Cooke set a hearing to next month to show cause as to what should occur based on this "incorrect statement."  Above The Law has written a story covering the lawyer who supposedly made the statements and explains that she is no longer with Greenberg.  As for the trial lawyers on the case (on both sides), I can say that they are good and ethical lawyers. 

Wow, this is a big deal.  From South Florida Business Journal:

TD Bank has acknowledged that it made a false statement to a federal judge about evidence in a lawsuit related to the Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, according to a notice filed on Tuesday in federal court in Miami.
The bank has also announced that a new law firm will be handling the case, which is on appeal.
***
TD Bank lost a $67 million jury verdict in January to investors who were bilked by Rothstein. The verdict in Coquina Investments vs. TD Bank is considered to be one of the first ever to hold a bank accountable for aiding and abetting fraud by one of its customers.
Since the verdict, Coquina has filed a previous motion to penalize the bank further for allegedly tampering with another document called a Customer Due Diligence form. The latest controversy over the Standard Investigative Protocol has resulted in U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke setting a hearing to determine why the bank shouldn’t be held in contempt of court.
***
In court motions, TD Bank said it had replaced Greenberg Traurig with two new law firms, McGuireWoods and Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman. The bank is facing several additional lawsuits related to the Rothstein case, including one by investor Emess Capital. The bank also dropped Greenberg in the Emess case, but Greenberg continues to represent TD Bank in other cases, Acevedo said Wednesday.
***
TD Bank’s new counsel, including Marcos Daniel Jimenez of Kasowitz Benson in Miami, filed an emergency motion to stay the contempt hearing until the firm can study the case further. In that motion, Kasowitz Benson warned that a conflict of interest may exist among TD Bank employees, the bank and Greenberg Traurig regarding the production of documents in the case.

High profile Broward defendants lose in 11th Circuit...

...in unpublished decisions.

The first is USA v. Fitzroy Salesman:

Defendant Fitzroy Salesman, a former city commissioner in Florida, appeals his convictions and 51-month total sentence for two counts of accepting bribes in programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), and two counts of attempted extortion under color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. After review and oral argument, we affirm.

The second is USA v. Alan Mendelsohn:

Alan D. Mendelsohn appeals his forty-eight-month sentence imposed after he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, file false tax returns, and make false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On appeal, Mendelsohn argues that the district court erroneously applied two separate sentence enhancements and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

***

We find no merit in this contention because the charges in the information, the pre-sentence investigation report, and the factual basis for Mendelsohn’s plea all provided Mendelsohn with notice by referring to the harm caused to Florida’s political institutions by his misuse of political action committees and his payments to the Florida legislator.

Monday morning...

I wish I had something exciting to post this morning, but it's pretty quiet.

The Justice Building Blog has been doing an excellent job covering all of the election action, including Rod Vereen's decision to run against Kathy Fernandez-Rundle.  Thank goodness that the public defender, Carlos Martinez, is unopposed.  Carlos deserves it, and he is a good guy.  It's incredible to me that we elect the public defender -- can you imagine a contested election.  What would you run on?  That you fight for indigent defendants more than the other guy.  Not sure that would help...

The John Edwards trial is starting today, and opening statements are due in Clemens this morning. Two pretty wasteful prosecutions if you ask me.

George Will has a good op-ed about why juveniles should never be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole here:

In 1958, the court said: “The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Justice Antonin Scalia has warned: “A society that adopts a bill of rights is skeptical that ‘evolving standards of decency’ always ‘mark progress,’ and that societies always ‘mature,’ as opposed to rot.” But even the “originalist” Scalia, although disposed to construe the Constitution’s terms as they were understood when ratified, would today proscribe some late-18th-century punishments, such as public lashing and branding.
Denying juveniles even a chance for parole defeats the penal objective of rehabilitation. It deprives prisoners of the incentive to reform themselves. Some prisons withhold education, counseling and other rehabilitation programs from prisoners ineligible for parole. Denying these to adolescents in a period of life crucial to social and psychological growth stunts what the court in 2005 called the prisoner’s “potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.” Which seems, in a word — actually, three words — “cruel and unusual.”

 
ATL covers the most influential lawyers (according to Time) here, and the Washington Post explains that lawyers are pretty careful in the Supreme Court when arguing legislative intent.  That's all I have for now.  Email me some tips!

Jury nullification case dismissed

I just love that this guy -- fighting for his right to tell potential jurors to say not guilty -- was pro-se and won.  It really bothered me that the government charged him with a federal crime for protected speech.  From the Times:

The next time the 80-year-old retired chemistry professor takes his protest to the plaza outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan, he may make it home without being locked up.

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the dismissal of an indictment against the professor, Julian P. Heicklen, who had been charged with jury tampering for advocating the controversial position known as jury nullification while outside the courthouse.

Mr. Heicklen had repeatedly stood with a “Jury Info” sign and handed out brochures supporting nullification, the view that jurors who disagree with a law may ignore their oaths and vote to acquit a defendant accused of violating it.

Prosecutors said such advocacy, “directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”

But the judge, Kimba M. Wood of Federal District Court, wrote that a person violated the jury tampering statute only when he or she knowingly tried to influence a juror’s decision through a written communication “made in relation to a specific case pending before that juror.”

Judge Wood added that she would not “stretch the interpretation” of the statute to cover speech that was “not meant to influence” a juror’s actions in a specific case.

Mr. Heicklen expressed pleasure at the ruling. “Not just for me,” he said. “I think it’s a major decision for the country.”

He added: “This is better than having them throw me in jail.”

 Well said.  Well done Judge Wood.  The only thing better would have been a jury finding him not guilty....

Wednesday news and notes

1.  Congrats to Todd Scher who obtained a new trial for his death-row client before Judge Seitz.  From the NY Times:

These days, Mr. Holland is represented by Todd G. Scher, a Miami Beach lawyer who won in the Supreme Court and persuaded Judge Seitz to order a new trial. A spokesman for the Florida attorney general’s office said prosecutors would ask Judge Seitz to reconsider her ruling.

Mr. Scher said he did not know who would represent Mr. Holland at a retrial. For now, he said, what was clear was that a federal judge had found “a blatant Sixth Amendment violation.”

“It shows that he was right,” Mr. Scher said of his client. “He had concerns about his prior series of lawyer, and his concerns turned out to be valid.” 

2.  Fitzroy Salesman was in the 11th Circuit yesterday, and represented by all-around good person Ashley Litwin.  From the Sun-Sentinel:

Ashley Litwin, Salesman's appeals lawyer, told the judges on Tuesday that Salesman had acted like an NBA star on suspension from his team contract who worked on a beer commercial but wasn't paid for it until after he returned to the team.
But Assistant U.S. Attorney Carol Herman said the analogy wasn't a good one "because elected officials are held to a higher standard than sports figures."

 Really? In Miami, I think sports figures are held to a higher standard...

Oh man, this is really bad

Check out this report by the Washington Post:

Justice Department officials have known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people nationwide, but prosecutors failed to notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.


Officials started reviewing the cases in the 1990s after reports that sloppy work by examiners at the FBI lab was producing unreliable forensic evidence in court trials. Instead of releasing those findings, they made them available only to the prosecutors in the affected cases, according to documents and interviews with dozens of officials.

In addition, the Justice Department reviewed only a limited number of cases and focused on the work of one scientist at the FBI lab, despite warnings that problems were far more widespread and could affect potentially thousands of cases in federal, state and local courts.


As a result, hundreds of defendants remain in prison or on parole for crimes that might merit exoneration, a retrial or a retesting of evidence using DNA because FBI hair and fiber experts may have misidentified them as suspects.

Now what?  Read the whole piece; it's long but worth your time.

"Which office do I go to get my reputation back?

That was Ray Donovan after he was acquitted.  I was reminded of that quote while posting the Bar letter to Lewis & Tein in the post below, which "regrets any confusion" that was created by saying that the two lawyers were being investigated for perjury or the motion to recuse.  Turns out that the Bar isn't investigating any such thing and is instead merely "monitor[ing] the underlying civil proceedings."  Which office do they go to to get their reputations back?

There's been an awful lot of schadenfreude going around town lately.  Remember Alan Shore's closing argument in Boston Legal:

Shadenfreude. From the German words, Schaden and Freude, damage and joy. It means to take spiteful, malicious delight in the misfortune of others. We used to dismiss this as simply an ugly side of human nature, but it is much much more than that. Recently a Stanford professor actually captured Schadenfreude on a brain scan. It’s a physiological medical phenomenon. When we see others fall it sometimes causes a chemical to be released in the dorsal striatum of the brain which actually causes us to feel pleasure. If you watch the news or read the papers, which of course you don’t because the Judge said not to, but if you did, you would see the undeniable delicious joy of the media and the public over Kelly Nolan’s plight. I have no doubt that you want Kelly Nolan to be punished. She married for money, she had an affair, she carried on naked in the pool with her boyfriend. She’s cold, materialistic, unlikable, and it might bring you all pleasure to see her go to jail. But as for evidence to establish that she committed a murder beyond all reasonable doubt? It just isn’t there. The only possible route to a guilty verdict here is Schadenfreude.

Guy and Mike are good, aggressive lawyers, and people don't like that. The Florida Bar's letter today proves they don't deserve the press they've been getting.

Why one shouldn't rush to judgment....

... even when it's reported in the newspaper.  Lots of people in town have been quick to jump on the Lewis/Tein bar investigation.  Problem is that it was misreported.  Here's the Florida Bar letter from today, apologizing:

April 16, 2012

 

Mr. Guy A. Lewis

Mr. Michael Ross Tein

Lewis Tein PL

3059 Grand Avenue, Suite 340

Coconut Grove, FL  33133-5166

Re:      Complaint by The Florida Bar against Michael Ross Tein

            The Florida Bar File No. 2012-70,334(11G)

            Complaint by The Florida Bar Bar against Guy A. Lewis

            The Florida Bar File No. 2012-70,335(11G)

Dear Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tein:

Newspapers recently reported information pertaining to your representation of Tammy Gwen Billie and Jimmy Bert, some of which was attributed to The Florida Bar and some of which was not accurate.  Pursuant to our discussions, please be advised as follows:

            1.         The Florida Bar does not now nor did it previously have an investigation                                        pertaining to your Motion to Recuse Judge Dresnick, as was previously reported.

            2.         The matter which is pending at Grievance Committee pertains only to Judge                                  Dresnick's $3500 sanctions order and not to “perjury” or any other issue or                                     allegation, as was previously reported.

            3.         As discussed, the Florida Bar continues to monitor the underlying civil                                           proceedings.

 
The Bar regrets any confusion caused by the recent news reports.

Sincerely,

/s/ 

ARLENE KALISH SANKEL

Chief Branch Discipline Counsel

cc:        Mr. Kendall B. Coffey, Esq.

UPDATE -- The Herald issued this correction today.  They were given the bad information by the Bar:

Because of incorrect information provided by the Florida Bar, a story in Friday's Metro section gave an inaccurate account of the Bar’s investigation into Miami lawyers Guy Lewis and Michael Tein. The Bar is not investigating the lawyers for their assertion — in a recusal motion involving their clients, two Miccosukee Indians — that Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Ronald Dresnick was biased against Native Americans. The story also mischaracterized the status of two other related allegations. The Bar’s grievance committee is investigating Lewis and Tein’s failure to turn over financial records of their clients. The Bar’s staff is monitoring the lawyers’ assertions regarding the source of their clients’ payments.