Why doesn't the SDFLA have a drug court?

Seems like this District would benefit from such a program, which are up and running in numerous districts around the country. The front page of the NY Times profiles the new federal drug court and Judge Gleeson, who is yet again out in front of cutting edge criminal practice:

Federal judges around the country are teaming up with prosecutors to create special treatment programs for drug-addicted defendants who would otherwise face significant prison time, an effort intended to sidestep drug laws widely seen as inflexible and overly punitive. The Justice Department has tentatively embraced the new approach, allowing United States attorneys to reduce or even dismiss charges in some drug cases. The effort follows decades of success for “drug courts” at the state level, which legal experts have long cited as a less expensive and more effective alternative to prison for dealing with many low-level repeat offenders. But it is striking that the model is spreading at the federal level, where judges have increasingly pushed back against rules that restrict their ability to make their own determination of appropriate sentences. So far, federal judges have instituted programs in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. About 400 defendants have been involved nationwide. In Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Thursday, Judge John Gleeson issued an opinion praising the new approach as a way to address swelling prison costs and disproportionate sentences for drug trafficking. “Presentence programs like ours and those in other districts mean that a growing number of courts are no longer reflexively sentencing federal defendants who do not belong in prison to the costly prison terms recommended by the sentencing guidelines,” Judge Gleeson wrote. The opinion came a year after Judge Gleeson, with the federal agency known as Pretrial Services, started a program that made achieving sobriety an incentive for drug-addicted defendants to avoid prison. The program had its first graduate this year: Emily Leitch, a Brooklyn woman with a long history of substance abuse who was arrested entering the country at Kennedy International Airport with over 13 kilograms of cocaine, about 30 pounds, in her luggage. “I want to thank the federal government for giving me a chance,” Ms. Leitch said. “I always wanted to stand up as a sober person.”

Doug Berman has uploaded the Gleeson opinion here, and it's worth a read.

Claudio Osorio pleads guilty

But not before Judge Altonaga. He was scheduled to plead before her this week, but she recused. The case was reassigned to Judge Dimitrouleas and he took the plea today to two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). AUSA Lois Foster-Steers is prosecuting the case.

Verdict in Steiner case

The verdict is in for Steve Steiner and Henry Fecker. It was a 54 count indictment. Fecker was found not guilty of all counts and Steiner was found not guilty of about 75% of the counts. Trial was before Judge Kathy Williams.

Interesting Jury Question in Khan case (UPDATED)

Khan Jury Question 

And here's Judge Scola's response:

Court's Response 

Thanks very much to my tipster!

UPDATE -- here's the latest question.  Fascinating!

Another Kahn Question by

Verdict(s) today?

The juries are out in the Pakistani Taliban case and the Steve Steiner Mutual Benefits money laundering case.  If you hear anything, shoot me an email and I will post it.  Thanks!

Why won't the Supreme Court hear a prosecutorial misconduct case

There have been a bunch lately, but the Court keeps turning them away.  Justice Sotomayor issued a rare statement condemning the prosecutor (joined only by one other Justice), but why won't the Court take these cases? 

From her conclusion:

It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dig nity of our criminal justice

system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice. In discharging the duties of his office in this case, the Assis tant United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas missed the mark. 

 

Also troubling are the Government’s actions on appeal. Before the Fifth Circuit, the

Government failed to recognize the wrongfulness of the prosecutor’s question, instead

calling it only “impolitic” and arguing that “even assuming the question crossed the line,” it did not prejudice the outcome. Brief for United States in No. 11–50605, pp. 19-20. This prompted Judge Haynes to “clear up any confusion—the question crossed the line.” 478 Fed. Appx. 193, 196 (CA5 2012) (concurring opinion). In this Court, the Solicitor General has more appropriately conceded that the “prosecutor’s racial remark was unquestionably improper.” Brief in Opposition 7–8. Yet this belated acknowledgment came only after the Solicitor General waived the Government’s response

to the petition at first, leaving the Court to direct a response.

 

I hope never to see a case like this again.

"Attorney Maria Elena Perez blazes her own path in defense of former UM booster Nevin Shapiro"

That's one way to put it.  It's the headline for John Pacenti's in depth article about Maria Elena Perez, the lawyer representing the lowest of low snitches, Nevin Shapiro. 




Donna Shalala is outraged by it all: 

UM president Donna Shalala attacked the NCAA for its flawed investigation and maintains the university has been punished enough through two self-imposed postseason bans even though the NCAA gives the final word on punishment for violations.
Shalala is incredulous that the NCAA is taking the word of Perez's client, "who made a fortune by lying."

 Welcome to the federal criminal justice system.  This is the dirty little secret of federal criminal cases -- they are built on snitches like Shapiro every day of the week.  The criminal defense bar has gotten so used to it they it's become learned helplessness.  Maybe cases like this will push people to fight back instead of laying down while taking the shocks over and over again.  

Does DNA collection from arrestees violate the 4th Amendment?

That's the question before the High Court this morning.  Police, of course, say it's a vital tool:

The bolstered federal database has helped solve thousands of crimes by linking DNA evidence at old crime scenes to newly arrested people.
"Behind every number is a human story, a case in which a buccal swab sample collected from a felony arrestee played a crucial role in solving a violent crime," says a brief submitted by all 49 other states backing Maryland's law.
On the other side is Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested on assault charges in 2009. Police collected DNA from a simple cheek swab and matched it to a 2003 rape case, for which King then was convicted. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the cheek swab constituted a search without either a warrant or suspicion of another crime. Now the state, backed by the federal government, is challenging that ruling.

The NY Times, on the other hand, says no way:

The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless it was collected.

Maryland argues that collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so without legal justification.

Maryland also argues that the incursion on Mr. King’s privacy was minor compared with the major benefit in crime-solving. But the number of crimes solved with DNA from people arrested has been low. The substantial harm to innocent people that could result from the misuse of DNA greatly outweighs the benefits. And the safeguard against such harm is the Fourth Amendment, whose fundamental protections the Maryland court upheld. The Supreme Court should do likewise.

 

Will be interesting to see how this one comes out.  Predictions?

The twists and turns of the "psychic fraud" case

I haven't covered this story all that much, but Paula McMahon over at the Sun-Sentinel has been all over it, and here's the latest:

Federal prosecutors and investigators received a severe scolding in court this week from one of the judges overseeing a $25 million fraud case against a Broward County family of fortune tellers.
"I'm disappointed by the shameful conduct of the government here," the usually mild-mannered U.S. Magistrate Judge James Hopkins said during a hearing on defense allegations in federal court in West Palm Beach on Wednesday. "There's much about the government's conduct in this case that's very troubling."
Among the problems identified by the judge were grand jury testimony that included "ethnic stereotypes" about Gypsies or the Roma allegations an investigator had a financial relationship with alleged victim and best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux; that agents and a prosecutor helped Deveraux in a court case about money she owed her ex-husband; and that some "victims" were included in the indictment without agents ever contacting them to confirm any crime occurred.
The judge also called some of the investigative team's actions "deficient" and said they raised "the specter of misconduct."
Defense lawyers asked the judge to dismiss charges against Rose Marks and eight family members alleging the behavior was sufficiently egregious.
The judge said he felt the alleged misconduct did not rise to the level required by law to dismiss the charges against the family before their April 1 trial. Four family members have pleaded guilty but may withdraw those pleas if the case is dismissed for governmental misconduct.
Hopkins said the defense can raise the issue at trial and ask U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, the trial judge, to toss out the case before it goes to a jury. Hopkins will make his formal recommendations soon, but the defense is expected to ask Marra, who has the final say, to reconsider.
Hopkins became aggravated Wednesday when he said the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was not "'fessing up to significant errors."

Meantime, last night was the big federal bar event at the Hyatt.  It was a success as usual with a large turnout.  Most of the federal judges were there and the lines at the bar weren't too long.  So good times for all!

Have a nice weekend.

"I kindly suggest to you that you go to a hospital."

That was 77-year old defendant Hafiz Kahn to the AUSA during cross-examination, suggesting that he was mentally ill for the questions he was asking.  The prosecutor responded: "KAHHHHHHNNNNNNN!"



Actually, he said: "I'll let the jury make that determination, Mr. Khan."

Judge Scola then sent the jury out and told the defendant to chill: "You are never going to convince Mr. Shipley to change his mind about you. The only chance you have is to convince the jury to believe you."

Curt Anderson from the AP has all the dramatic details here.  A snippet:

"In front of God, I did the right thing. In front of my tribe, I did the right thing," Khan testified in Pashto through an interpreter. "It was all lies, and it was all because of the money."
Khan spent a second day on the witness stand in his own defense on charges of funneling at least $50,000 to the Pakistani Taliban beginning in 2008. He previously testified that money he sent overseas was for the poor, for his extended family and for a religious school, or madrassa, he owns in the Swat Valley. He insisted he has never supported the Taliban.
The imam repeatedly clashed during cross-examination with Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley, who pressed Khan on whether the FBI recordings represented his true beliefs on terrorism. Among other things, the recordings have Khan praising the attempted bombing in 2010 in New York's Times Square and hoping that Americans would die trying to capture former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In taped conversations with the informant Siddiqui, Khan answered, "There are many times I am agreeing with him, but that does not mean that I mean it. I didn't want to harm anyone."

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

The twists and turns of the Pakistani Terror trial

Last week witnesses were testifying via video feed from Pakistan.  The feed cut-off midstream (with some arguing that the Pakistan government was responsible because they were tipped off).  Judge Scola ordered that the trial continue, and now the defendant 77-year old Hafiz Khan has taken the stand.  Day two of his testimony is today.

From the AP (Curt Anderson):

"We are innocent of these accusations," said Khan, speaking in Pashto through an interpreter. "We have no connection with them whatsoever. We hate them."
Khan, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen after arriving here in 1994, said he is proud to live in this country, is registered to vote and does not even know how to fire a gun. Frequently stroking his flowing white beard and adjusting his skullcap, the imam of a downtown Miami mosque said he does not own a television and concentrates mainly on Islamic studies and teaching – something he feels utterly free to do in the U.S. because of its guaranteed rights.
"It is really a good thing to be a citizen of the United States," Khan said.

Tuesday morning notes (UPDATED)

1. The Washington Post has a good article about Clarence Thomas and the fascination behind him not asking questions.  A snippet:

Some justices have told others that Thomas sometimes jots down inquiries and urges Justice Stephen G. Breyer, his friend and seatmate on the bench, to pose them.
The two often confer during oral arguments, and Thomas confirmed during a recent appearance at Harvard Law School that the talkative Breyer sometimes throws in a Thomas question.
“I’ll say, ‘What about this, Steve,’ and he’ll pop up and ask a question,” a laughing Thomas told the law students. “I’ll say, ‘It was just something I was throwing out.’ So you can blame some of those [Breyer questions] on me.”
And another thing is the Harvard speech itself. Although he described himself during the interview with HLS Dean Martha Minow as “quite introverted” and said he could “go a lifetime without making public appearances,” his extracurricular life is as busy as that of any of his colleagues.
***
He described himself as someone who tends “to get along well with people.” He was lavish with praise for his colleagues — especially the liberals.
He called Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the epitome of what a judge should be. “She makes all of us better judges,” he said. He called President Obama’s most recent nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, a delight and said he told her that “it’s going to be a joy disagreeing with you for years to come.”
And Thomas once again explained why he doesn’t ask questions at oral arguments.
“I think it’s unnecessary to deciding cases to ask that many questions and I don’t think it’s helpful,” he said. “I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their case and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.”

 2. In local news, Paul Calli who is representing the Lewis Tein firm, is showing why people shouldn't rush to judgment (via DBR):

A longtime accountant who was fired by the Miccosukee Indians days before she was to give a deposition in the tribe's malpractice lawsuit against the Lewis Tein law firm testified tribal lawyer Bernardo Roman III tried to influence her testimony and wanted her to lie.
Jodi Goldenberg, who worked for the Miccosukees for 21 years, said at the deposition attended by Roman that she was not told why she was fired but suspected there were several reasons.
"One being that I know the truth in some of these cases that are going on, and I think that what I'm going to say is contrary to what the tribe's attorney wants me to say. Maybe he wanted me to appear to be a disgruntled employee," Goldenberg said.

UPDATED:

3.  Two big search cases from the Supreme Court today.  From SCOTUSblog:

First opinion — Harris (dog sniffs) — Kagan for the Court reversing the Florida S. Ct. unanimously.
The Court holds that because training and testing records supported the dog's reliability, and the defendant failed to undermine that evidence, there was probable cause to search the defendant's truck.... 

Here's the opinion in Florida v. Harris....  The Harris opinion does not refer to the Jardines opinion, so we may not get it today after all.  From the Harris opinion: "The Florida Supreme Court flouted this established approach to determining probable cause." (Ouch.)...

Third opinion -- Bailey v. United States -- per Kennedy, the Second Circuit is reversed. The vote is 6-3, with Breyer, Thomas, and Alito dissenting....
The Court holds that Michigan v. Summers is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises.  Justice Scalia writes separately.  Kagan and Ginsburg join both the Court's opinion and the Scalia concurrence.

This was the case about searching someone on the basis of a warrant to search a house, when they have left the premises.  Here is the opinion in Bailey v. US....
The Court will have more opinions at 10 am tomorrow. Again, we do not know which ones or how many there will be.  The other dog-sniffing case is 11-564, Fla. v. Jardines.  It did not come out today.

Jury duty

Yesterday I was in Rumpole's building serving as a potential juror.  It was an interesting experience.  I wasn't selected to actually sit on a jury, but I participated in Judge Andrea Wolfson's voir dire in a misdemeanor battery case. 

Judge Wolfson was fantastic and ran a very good jury selection. I was impressed by her demeanor and how she handled the lawyers and the jury pool.

It's eye-opening to see the process from the juror's point of view.  I don't think lawyers realize how much waiting around there is, but more on this later.

So what did I miss yesterday?  The Pakistan trial has hit some bumps in the road.  Rhino horn smuggling.  And Justice Scalia is hunting again, this time with Justice Kagan.  He spoke about it during a Q&A with Nina Totenberg at the same time the President gave his State of the Union Address.  From the AP:

Lest anyone think the timing of his talk was anything other than a coincidence, Scalia tried to put those thoughts to rest.
"I didn't set this up tonight just to upstage the president," he said. "The State of the Union is not something I mark on my calendar, like Easter or Yom Kippur."
Scalia said the justices in attendance inevitably keep their eyes on the chief justice, who decides when it is appropriate to applaud.
If the president says the United States is a great country, clap away, he said. But no justice can clap "if it's anything anybody can disagree with," Scalia said.
Prodded by Totenberg, Scalia also commented on the hunting ability of Justice Elena Kagan, who has joined Scalia to shoot quail, pheasant and larger animals.
Last year, on a trip to Wyoming, they had a license to go after antelope and mule deer. But there were none to be found.
Instead, "she ended up killing a white-tailed doe, which she could have done in my driveway" in suburban Virginia, Scalia said.
He said Kagan, who never handled a gun before joining the court, is just a beginner, but "she dropped that doe in just one shot."

Judge Carnes quotes Macbeth in USA v. Davis

Hot off the presses, he starts the opinion this way:

The defendant himself described the events leading up to this appeal when he told the judge, “Sir, I don’t see how you’re going to go forward with this trial. It’s turmoil.” But there was more than just turmoil. With two troubled jurors wanting to be excused and no alternates to replace them, and with a problem defendant stirring the brew, there was “[d]ouble, double, toil and trouble.”* The pot began to simmer in jury selection and boiled over during the trial, after jeopardy had attached. The double trouble produced a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, raising the specter of double jeopardy.

* William Shakespeare, Macbeth, act 4, sc. 1.

The conclusion: "This case having strutted and fretted its hour upon the appellate stage, we conclude that the curtain should be dropped, at least on this Act of it."

"The legal system in this country, it’s not a joke. It’s not a toy for rich idiots to play with."

That's Bill Maher discussing the $5 million lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against him:



The letter from the Cooley lawyer is absurd.

In local news, Curt Anderson covers the Pakistani Taliban case:

Testifying via video from Pakistan, a man accused by the U.S. of conspiring with an elderly Miami-based Muslim cleric to funnel thousands of dollars to Taliban terrorists insisted Monday the money was for innocent purposes, including a potato chip factory run by the cleric's son-in-law.
Ali Rehman was the first of as many as 11 witnesses expected to testify from an Islamabad hotel in defense of 77-year-old Hafiz Khan, who faces four terrorism support and conspiracy counts. Rehman is named in the same indictment and refused to come to the U.S. Other witnesses were unable to get U.S. visas in time. Rehman said he handled three separate $10,000 transactions for Khan in 2008 and 2009. Most of the money, he testified, went to Anayat Ullah, who is married to Khan's daughter Husna and started the potato chip business with his father-in-law as an investor.
Rehman said he has known Ullah since they were children in Pakistan's Swat Valley and wanted to do him a favor. "That favor was that his father was sending him some money, and I used to deliver it to him or sent it to him," said Rehman. He spoke in Pashto that was translated into English for the 12-person jury watching him on flat-screen televisions.

Monday morning

Hope everyone had a nice weekend.  Not much doing in SDFLA. 

What's left of Judge Scola's Pakistani Taliban trial continues today with the defense case.  Curt Anderson is covering it here:

Defense witnesses are set to testify from Pakistan in the South Florida trial of a Muslim cleric charged with financially supporting the Pakistani Taliban.

The first of up to 11 witnesses will testify Monday from an Islamabad hotel. The testimony will be beamed to a Miami federal courtroom via video hookup. Defense lawyers will ask questions in Pakistan, with prosecutors doing cross-examination using the video feed.

 There were a bunch of press conferences last week in the District about a new IRS crackdown on identity theft and tax fraud.  Apparently we are #1 again in this sort of fraud with the highest number of complaints of any state and the highest number for any city.

Also last week, there were a number of really good CLEs.  There was the appellate seminar, which ended up with a party at Judge Barkett's house for all the attendees.  Very cool move by Judge Barkett. 

The DCBA had a huge corporate law seminar at the Coral Gables Country Club, which was well attended.  The guest speaker was Brad Meltzer, who was excellent. 

And FACDL, along with FIU, had Tom Mesereau speak as part of its fantastic trial lawyer seminar series.  All reports say Mesereau (who was Michael Jackson's lawyer) was dynamic.

  Out of District -- this week will be oral argument in the Barry Bonds case.  And the Ninth Circuit has agreed to cameras in the courtroom.  I don't think it will air live, but it's a start.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/11/3227991/testimony-from-pakistan-in-fla.html#storylink=cpy

"Sonia Sotomayor No Longer Interested in Bringing Cameras Into the Supreme Court"

That's the headline from this NY Magazine article. Although Justice Sotomayor testified before Congress that she was in favor of cameras in the High Court, she has changed her mind. Her rationale:

"There's no other public official who is required by the nature of their work to completely explain to the public the basis of their decision," she said, when asked about the hotly debated issue by moderator Thane Rosenbaum.  

"Every Supreme Court decision is rendered with a majority opinion that goes carefully through the analysis of the case and why the end result was reached. Everyone fully explains their views. Looking at oral argument is not going to give you that explanation. Oral argument is the forum in which the judge plays devil's advocate with lawyers.” “I think the process could be more misleading than helpful,” she added. “It's like reading tea leaves. I think if people analyzed it, it is true that in almost every argument you can find a hint of what every judge would rule. But most justices are actually probing all the arguments."

That makes absolutely no sense to me. People may be misled by actually watching oral argument instead of hearing someone else describe it or reading the transcripts? Really?

Meantime, Justice Ginsburg gave a talk at Harvard, which was covered by the Harvard Gazette.

A snippet:

[Dean Martha] Minow inquired about collegiality on the court, which is often deeply split. Ginsburg responded that over the years her husband’s culinary skills have helped foster a friendly atmosphere. He baked birthday cakes for members of the court, she said, and catered their quarterly meetings.

Ginsburg told Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow that she looks back on her Harvard years with fondness.

In addition, the justices like to hold regular soirees, said Ginsburg, where they forgo work and “just listen to beautiful music.”
But are there times, Minow pressed, when, despite their ritual handshakes before they take the bench, a little animosity breaks through?
Ginsburg said she may occasionally bristle at a “nasty dissent” penned by another justice, but “we are all in this together, and we do revere the institution for which we work.” Still, she said she hoped the court someday will return to the “spirit of bipartisanship which prevailed in the early ’90s.”

"We Found Love In a Hopeless Place"

Not sure Rihanna had this in mind when she wrote that song:

He was one of the most notorious criminals in New York’s recent history, whose execution-style murder of two undercover police officers led a jury to issue the first federal death sentence in the city in more than a half century. 

 Ronell Wilson, right, in 2003, after appearing in court to face charges in the shooting of two undercover police detectives. She was a lonely correction officer, assigned to guard the cell block at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he was being held. 

 Inside the federal jail, Ronell Wilson, the convicted killer, and Nancy Gonzalez, his nighttime guard, would talk for hours, according to other inmates. They would disappear together for minutes at a time, behind closed doors. Several times, they were seen kissing, confirming suspicions of an illicit romance. 

 Ms. Gonzalez later admitted that the two had sex repeatedly, with the goal of having a child together. She was aware, she said, of the many possible complications, from the prospect of facing jail herself to the difficulty of telling her child the truth about his father. She explained her motivations to another inmate: “Why not give him a child, as far as giving him some kind of hope?” 

 On Tuesday, Ms. Gonzalez, 29, displaying the full contours of a pregnancy now in its eighth month, was arraigned in federal court on charges of sexual abuse of a person in custody, because an inmate cannot legally consent to sex. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. She stood before the judge in a black overcoat and sweat pants, softly answering procedural questions while dabbing her eyes with a tissue. 

The press surged around Ms. Gonzalez the instant she stepped out of the courthouse, and she put her head on the shoulder of her lawyer, Anthony L. Ricco. “She’s had a very tragic life and as this case proceeds, you’ll learn more about it and how these affected her judgment,” Mr. Ricco said. He added, “People find love in the strangest places.” 

"[Senior status] is not a done deal until you tell the president."

That's Chief Judge Joel Dubina, saying he may not take senior status after all:

But on Monday, Dubina told the Daily Report that the Administrative Office may have acted too soon. He said he had notified Chief Justice John Roberts that he would relinquish the title of chief judge on Aug. 1 and planned to take senior status that day. He said Roberts needed to know because the chief judge chairs the U.S. Judicial Conference, on which circuit court chief judges serve.
But Dubina said taking senior status “is not a done deal until you tell the president,” an action he has not made yet because of the delay in filling the two Georgia-based seats on the Eleventh Circuit.
President Obama has twice nominated Atlanta litigator Jill Pryor to fill the seat vacated by the retirement of Judge Stanley Birch in August 2010, but she has been blocked by Georgia’s senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. Another seat was vacated last summer by Judge J.L. Edmondson, who took senior status.
Dubina, who was appointed in 1990 and whose seat is based in Alabama, said he didn’t want to leave his colleagues “in the lurch” with only nine active judges.
He recalled early in his appellate career when the court had several vacancies and only nine judges—with about half the caseload of today. “Nine judges is extremely difficult,” he said, noting that the court suspended its rules requiring two Eleventh Circuit judges on each three-judge panel. Instead the court allowed only one Eleventh Circuit judge on a panel, joined by two visiting judges—a solution that risked the consistency of the court’s precedents, he said.

Speaking of filling vacancies, President Obama is doing so with lots of former federal prosecutors:

President Obama's liberal supporters have been dismayed by some of his judicial appointments, and now they can cite statistics: Obama has nominated former prosecutors more often than either Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
In Reagan's two terms, 40.8 percent of the judges he appointed had once been prosecutors. Bush, who like Reagan sought to move the judiciary in a more conservative direction, chose ex-prosecutors for 44.7 percent of his judicial appointments. The figures were 37.3 percent for Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, and 40.7 percent for Bill Clinton.
Obama, who began his second term Jan. 21, has appointed or nominated 219 federal judges, of whom 100 - 45.7 percent - were former prosecutors, according to statistics compiled by the Alliance for Justice.
By contrast, 33 nominees, all but three of them at the trial court level, had been public defenders. Even fewer had worked as poverty or civil rights lawyers.

Judge Turnoff lays down the law

This contempt of court order is worth a read (prior coverage here):

Judge Turnoff issues contempt order

A call to the judiciary

There was an article in the NY Times this weekend about why cops lie.  It's a nice piece, but nothing really new.  Professor Dershowitz has been writing about lying police officers for a long time, and here are some of his rules of the "justice game" from The Best Defense:

IV. ALMOST ALL POLICE LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DFEENDANTS.

V. ALL PROSECUTORS, JUDGES AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE AWARE OF RULE IV. 

Those are interesting concepts, but the following 4 statements will encourage more discussion:

VI. MANY PROSECUTORS IMPLICITLY ENCOURAGE POLICE TO LIE ABOUT WHETHER THEY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO CONVICT GUILTY DEFENDANTS.

VII. ALL JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VI.

VIII. MOST TRIAL JUDGES PRETEND TO BELIEVE POLICE OFFICERS WHO THEY KNOW ARE LYING

IX. ALL APPELLATE JUDGES ARE AWARE OF RULE VIII, YET MANY PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE TRIAL JUDGES WHO PRETEND TO BELIEVE THE POLICE OFFICERS.

So what is to be done about lying police officers?  We need to change rules 8 and 9.  Judges need to start calling them on it.  And of course, lying officers aren't the only problem with the criminal justice system that people have been writing about for years. 

There has been a lot said about prosecutors overcharging, the trial tax, and the Sentencing Guidelines just to name a few of the problems.

What can be done?  Article III judges, with life-time appointments, need to start speaking up and checking the executive branch with more vigor. 

--Dismiss more cases.  (See, e.g., Judge Scola in the "Pakistan terror" case by granting a judgment of acquittal; Judge Cooke in Ben Kuehne's case).   

--Grant more and longer variances. Judges are starting to grant more and more variances, but they are of the 6-12 month variety.  There are too many people in jail for too long because of the Sentencing Guidelines.  A federal conviction ruins people's lives.  Not every case necessitates lengthy sentences and many don't require jail at all.  The Guidelines are made up numbers without any real data to back them up.  I trust judges more than I do the grid. 

--Don't punish defendants for going to trial.  There are too few trials, mostly because the consequences of going to trial versus pleading are way too severe.  Going to trial doesn't mean that every enhancement applies or that variances are off the table.      

--Grant some pretrial motions and require prosecutors to turn over evidence.  I know that judges hate dealing with pretrial motions, especially those dealing with discovery.  But instead of denying them all, it's time to hold prosecutors' feet to the fire a little more.  The feeling out there right now is that each prosecutor decides for him or herself what to turn over and when and that judges aren't going to get involved.  It's also OK to throw out counts (yes, prosecutors overcharge) or to sever a case or to give teeth to any of the other Rules of Criminal Procedure.

--Grant motions to suppress when the officer is lying.  This goes to the NY Times article and Dershowitz's rules.

A big part of all of this goes to the court of appeals.  The 11th Circuit rules for the government even more than the district court does.  This has been the culture for a long time.  (When is the last time the court reversed a sentence within or above the guidelines?) But there is new blood on the 11th.  And three new open spots (two now, and one more this summer) will really change the court.

See what happens when there is a blackout during the Super Bowl.  The game is now back on, so I'll get off the soapbox. 

Kim Rothstein vs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Kim Rothstein pleaded guilty yesterday while Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke at the University of Miami campus.  Who got more press in South Florida?  Sadly, Rothstein by a ton.  From Jon Burtstein's story:

Five years ago this week, she was a bride who had just gotten married at South Beach's Versace Mansion to a rich, charismatic attorney who had Fort Lauderdale abuzz.

Three years ago, she was in seclusion after watching her husband, Scott Rothstein, go before a federal judge to plead guilty to the largest financial fraud in South Florida history.

On Friday, Kim Rothstein was back at the federal courthouse in Fort Lauderdale. This time, it was to admit that she too is a criminal.

Rothstein, 38, pleaded guilty to a plot to hide more than $1 million in jewelry from federal authorities as they were seizing her husband's assets to reimburse victims of his swindle. She admitted conspiring with her then-attorney and a friend to secretly sell the jewels, including a 12-carat diamond ring, and to persuade her imprisoned husband to lie under oath about the ring's whereabouts.

She faces up to five years in prison when sentenced April 19 by U.S. District Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum.

Dressed in a dark pantsuit, Rothstein answered Rosenbaum's questions in a clear, steady voice as she pleaded guilty to a felony charge of conspiracy to commit money laundering, obstruct justice and tamper with a witness.

"Are you pleading guilty because you are in fact guilty?" Rosenbaum asked.

"Yes, your honor," Rothstein responded.

She left the courthouse flanked by her defense attorneys, David Tucker and David Kotler. She did not acknowledge the reporters and cameramen outside as she got into a sports utility vehicle waiting for her.

From the Herald story on the Supreme Court Justice visit:

From her days as a young girl in the Bronx being raised by her mother after the death of her father to becoming the first Hispanic on the highest judicial body in the country, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the story of her journey before a captivated audience at the University of Miami on Friday night.


Sotomayor spoke with University of Miami President Donna E. Shalala at the BankUnited Center to University of Miami students, Coral Gables residents and perhaps a future Supreme Court justice about the inspiration behind her recently published memoir My Beloved World.

“Love and passion, that is the only way you do something well,” Sotomayor said. “Do a few things, but do them well.”

Sotomayor, 58, spoke of the many things that inspired her to share her story with the world, one of which was in responses to questions she hadn’t expected during her confirmation process, such as how children cope when a parent dies, especially if they don’t have a mother like hers.

“I began to understand that I couldn’t talk to every child in the country,” Sotomayor said. “I could give them the answers in a book.”

Is there a federal judicial clerkship crisis?

Apparently there is because federal judges won't follow the (voluntary) rules about timing of interviews and hiring.  So clerks are getting interviewed and hired earlier and earlier, which is really messing up the process.  What's the solution?  Aaron Zelinsky says take the voluntary out of the rules:

Congress has the power of the purse. It allocates funds for building courthouses, keeping the lights on, and employing staff. For instance, law clerks are employed under 28 U.S.C. 752 (for district courts) and 28 U.S.C. 712 (for circuit courts). If the judiciary really wants to fix the hiring plan, then judges should request that Congress condition salaries for law clerks upon them being hired in compliance with the judicial hiring plan. In other words, if you don't play by the rules, you don't have law clerks.


But wait, isn't that unconstitutional? Nope. The Constitution prevents Congress from lowering the salaries of federal judges, but says nothing about their staff (anyways, such a law could be written to apply only to those hired in the future, not those already employed). And Congress isn't infringing on the judicial power in any way - this law does not effect how judges make use of their clerks, just the timing of how they hire them. And it would leave the actual formation of the plan up to the judiciary.

Federal judges could ask Congress to make the hiring plan mandatory via a proposal from a special judicial working group, or even in Chief Justice Roberts's year end report to Congress. And they should. A new, mandatory plan would be fairer for less-advantaged law students and late-bloomers, more efficient for federal judges, and maybe even better for you.

Good luck with that one...

Meantime, over at his blog, Rumpole asks whether you'd rather be on the Third DCA or on the SDFLA district bench.  Or a Florida Supreme Court Justice or on the 11th Circuit.  Seems to me that the federal positions are much more sought after and are thought of in the legal community as more prestigious.  And speaking of clerks, the feds get the cream of the crop.  I imagine that the district court clerks have better resumes than the clerks on the Florida Supreme Court.  Is that right?

Can we clone Judge Gleeson?

District Judge John Gleeson is doing more good work in the Eastern District of New York.  The latest is this sentencing order about the guidelines in drug cases.  The reasoning applies also in white collar cases and just about every other guideline calculation.  Judge Gleeson is no bleeding heart -- he is a former (very tough) federal prosecutor who put John Gotti away. We need more Judge Gleesons. From his order (via Professor Berman's site):

Last year in United States v. Dossie, I wrote about how the mandatory minimum sentences in drug trafficking cases distort the sentencing process and mandate unjust sentences. This case illustrates a separate but related defect in our federal sentencing regime....
Diaz will be sentenced in a few weeks, and when that happens I will carefully consider all the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) except one — the length of imprisonment recommended by the United States Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual. Though I will not ignore Diaz’s Guidelines range, I will place almost no weight on it because of my fundamental policy disagreement with the offense guideline that produces it. In fairness to the government, I write here to explain my belief that the offense guideline for heroin, cocaine, and crack offenses (“drug trafficking offenses”) is deeply and structurally flawed. As a result, it produces ranges that are excessively severe across a broad range of cases, including this one.
The flaw is simply stated: the Guidelines ranges for drug trafficking offenses are not based on empirical data, Commission expertise, or the actual culpability of defendants. If they were, they would be much less severe, and judges would respect them more. Instead, they are driven by drug type and quantity, which are poor proxies for culpability.

...

If the Commission wants greater adherence to the Guidelines, as it should, it needs to get better at fixing broken offense guidelines.  The drug trafficking offense guideline was born broken.  Many judges will not respect it because as long as the sentences it produces are linked to the ADAA’s mandatory minimums, they will be too severe.  Indeed, as discussed further below, for almost two decades the nation’s judges have been telling the Commission to de-link the drug trafficking offense guideline from those harsh mandatory minimums and to reduce the sentencing ranges.  The Commission should listen and act.  It should use its resources, knowledge, and expertise to fashion fair sentencing ranges for drug trafficking offenses.  That process will take time.  In the meantime, because real people, families, and communities are harmed by the current ranges, it should immediately lower them by a third....
Let those who advocate for longer prison terms, and even a return to the dark days of mandatory Guidelines, go ahead and make their case.  The debate is good for the health of our federal criminal justice system.  But the suggestion that federal sentences should become more severe in the name of racial equality is preposterous.  That case has emphatically not been made, and the Commission’s repeated suggestion that it has insults the entire judiciary and demeans the Commission itself.  If it does nothing else, the Commission should take affirmative steps to remove the race issue, which it unwisely inserted into the discussion of federal sentencing policy, from the debate....
The Commission should use its resources, knowledge, and expertise to fashion fair sentencing ranges for drug trafficking offenses.  If it does, those ranges will be substantially lower than the ranges produced by the current offense guideline.  The deep, easily traceable structural flaw in the current drug trafficking offense guideline produces advisory ranges that are greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.  We must never lose sight of the fact that real people are at the receiving end of these sentences.  Incarceration is often necessary, but the unnecessarily punitive extra months and years the drug trafficking offense guideline advises us to dish out matter: children grow up; loved ones drift away; employment opportunities fade; parents die.

Closer to home, Judge Scola is beaming in testimony from Pakistan.  Curt Anderson has the details:

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola approved the unusual testimony in the case of 77-year-old imam Hafiz Khan. The first five witnesses will be questioned beginning Feb. 11 at an Islamabad hotel, and jurors will watch on courtroom TV screens. Scola said Tuesday the arrangement is costing taxpayers about $130,000.
Khan is on trial for allegedly funneling at least $50,000 to the Pakistani Taliban, listed by the U.S. as a terrorist group linked to al-Qaida. Khan insists the money was for innocent purposes, and the Pakistani witnesses are expected to back that up. If convicted, Khan faces up to 15 years in prison on each of four counts.
At a hearing Tuesday, Khan attorney Khurrum Wahid asked Scola to allow six additional witnesses to testify from Pakistan, over prosecutors' objections. The judge did not immediately rule but seemed inclined to approve the request, noting that an appeals court might toss out any convictions if the trial appears unfair to Khan.
"I don't want to have a second trial. I want to have one fair trial," Scola said.

Is the Constitution a living document or is it "dead, dead, dead"?

Justice Scalia said the latter in a speech in Dallas, via the Dallas Morning News:

“The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge,” he told an audience Monday evening at Southern Methodist University.


He and SMU law professor Bryan A. Garner shared the stage at McFarlin Auditorium for a lecture on their second book together, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Text.
Garner said that though he and Scalia differ politically, they agree on staying true to the law and on separating politics from legal interpretation.

“I will tell you that my political beliefs are different from those of Justice Scalia,” he said.
Garner supports gay marriage and favors stricter gun control laws.
But Scalia, who is regarded as one of the most conservative justices on the high court, declined to contrast his opinions on such matters.
“I haven’t expressed my views of either of those,” Scalia interjected. “You’re a bleeding heart.”

Congratulations to Magistrate Patrick Hunt

He was sworn in today by Chief Judge Moreno.

Monday news and notes (updated)

Update-- the Sentencing website has been re-hacked and is now the game Asteroids. I would have preferred Galaga...


Sorry for the slow blogging lately.  Hopefully will be back in full blogging mode soon.  In the meantime, here's what's up:

1.  The Sentencing Commission website was hacked by Anonymous (it's back up now).  From Anonymous' statement:

Last year the Federal Bureau of Investigation revelled in porcine glee at its successful infiltration of certain elements of Anonymous. This infiltration was achieved through the use of the *same tactics which lead to Aaron Swartz' death. It would not have been possible were it not for the power of federal prosecutors to thoroughly destroy the lives of any hacktivists they apprehend through the very real threat of highly disproportionate sentencing.
As a result of the FBI's infiltration and entrapment tactics, several more of our brethren now face similar disproportionate persecution, the balance of their lives hanging on the severely skewed scales of a broken justice system.
We have felt within our hearts a burning rage in reaction to these events, but we have not allowed ourselves to be drawn into a foolish and premature response. We have bidden our time, operating in the shadows, adapting our tactics and honing our abilities. We have allowed the FBI and its masters in government -- both the puppet and the shadow government that controls it -- to believe they had struck a crippling blow to our infrastructure, that they had demoralized us, paralyzed us with paranoia and fear. We have held our tongue and waited.
With Aaron's death we can wait no longer. The time has come to show the United States Department of Justice and its affiliates the true meaning of infiltration. The time has come to give this system a taste of its own medicine. The time has come for them to feel the helplessness and fear that comes with being forced into a game where the odds are stacked against them.
This website was chosen due to the symbolic nature of its purpose -- the federal sentencing guidelines which enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial, by a jury of their peers -- the federal sentencing guidelines which are in clear violation of the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments. This website was also chosen due to the nature of its visitors. It is far from the only government asset we control, and we have exercised such control for quite some time...

2.  The D.C. Circuit says no to recess appointments.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  The case will certainly go to the Supremes.  Remember that a recess appointment was used with Judge Pryor, but he was eventually confirmed by the full Senate 53-45, so the case has no bearing on him.

3.  Speaking of the 11th Circuit,  Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina, will be the keynote speaker at a PBCBA membership luncheon on February 1 at 11:45 a.m. at the Marriott West Palm Beach. He will be speaking regarding the inner workings of the 11^th Circuit and how things work behind the scenes. The luncheon will be co-hosted by the Palm Beach County Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and the Bankruptcy Bar Association for the Southern District of Florida.

 

President George H.W. Bush appointed Chief Judge Dubina to the 11^th Circuit in 1990 and he was appointed as Chief Judge in 2009. Judge Dubina previously served as a U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama from 1986-1990. He received his B.S. from the University of Alabama and his J.D. from Cumberland School of Law. Pre-registration for this luncheon is required and can be done on the Bar's website by clicking here.

“JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, there — see, he did not provide good counsel.”

The riddle is solved. From the Washington Post:

[T]he court released a new transcript Wednesday that contains the complete sentence:

“JUSTICE THOMAS: Well, there — see, he did not provide good counsel.”

The point remained the same. Thomas was tossing a lighthearted barb during a discussion about the qualifications of some of the attorneys representing murder suspect Jonathan Boyer.

One had attended Yale and one had attended Harvard. Thomas is a Yale Law grad who has been a frequent critic of his alma mater. On the other hand, he may have been making a crack about rival Harvard, because the lawyer from Cambridge was a man, and the New Haven graduate was a woman.

Maybe the joke was directed at the entire Ivy League, a favorite Thomas target. Every member of the high court attended Yale or Harvard, although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg finished at Columbia.

Judge Carnes to take over as Chief of 11th Circuit

This summer Judge Dubina will hand over the reigns to Judge Carnes. Aly Palmer has more:

Chief Judge Joel Dubina of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will step down as chief on August 1, Dubina told the Daily Report this week.

Dubina, who maintains his primary chambers in Montgomery, Ala., has been chief judge since mid-2009. He said the next chief judge will be Edward Carnes, a Montgomery-based judge who is next in line by seniority.

Court rules allow chief judges to serve up to seven years. “It has been the highlight of my judicial career,” Dubina said of his time as chief. “But there comes a time when you need to turn the reins over to someone else, and I believe that time has come for me.”

Dubina said he was leaning towards taking senior status—a form of semi-retirement in which judges can work a lighter caseload—in August, as well, but he didn’t commit to doing so. “I have not sent a letter to the president yet about senior status, and I have not definitively made up my mind about that,” he said.

Recap (UPDATED)

UPDATE -- Everything you want to know about the Supreme Court Skullcaps (worn yesterday by Justices Scalia and Breyer) is here.

Last week was pretty eventful in the SDFLA and around the federal courts.  A quick recap:

1.  Judge Scola did the right and courageous thing by granting the defense's motion for judgment of acquittal in Izhar Khan's case.  Here is the JOA ruling. The money line: "This court will not allow the sins of the father to be visited upon the son." And here is Curt Anderson's coverage.



2.  Clarence Thomas spoke during an oral argument.  No one is really sure what he said. Here's the audio so you can hear for yourself.

3.  Raul Iglesias was convicted.  It was a hard fought battle.  Rick Diaz after the verdict: “An appellate court will allow that evidence at a new trial, and he will be vindicate. In the meantime, the verdict suggests that we should put all city of Miami police officers on a leave of absence and give their guns and badges and cruisers to the crack addicts in the city of Miami.”

4.  The Supreme Court weighed in on houseboats.  Lozman's was a house and not a boat.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/18/3189017/veteran-miami-police-sergeant.html#storylink=cpy

Raul Iglesias jury back

Convicted on eight counts, including two civil rights violations, conspiracy to possess and possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, obstruction of justice and making false official statements.

Breaking-- Judge Scola grants rule 29 in Pakistani terror case

For one of the defendants, Izhar Khan. He was represented by Joe Rosenbaum, Dore Louis, and Kim Acevedo.

Congrats to the defense team. This is the second of three defendants to be dismissed from the case. The first was represented by Michael Caruso, the FPD. Also congrats to Judge Scola for having the courage to issue this ruling.

From the Herald article by Jay Weaver:

A federal judge threw out the terrorism charges against a young Muslim
cleric from Broward County in a trial where he and his father, an imam in
Miami, are accused of providing financial support to the Pakistani Taliban
terrorist organization.

Izhar Khan, the imam of a mosque in Margate, will be a free man later
Thursday after U.S. District Judge Robert Scola issued a verdict of
acquittal for the 26-year-old Muslim scholar.
The prosecution, which rested its case Wednesday in the material support
trial, failed to mount sufficient evidence of wrongdoing against the
younger imam, imam of Masjid Jamaat Al-Mumineen mosque off Sample Road.

“I do not believe in good conscience that I can allow the case to go
forward against Izhar Khan,” Scola ruled Thursday.

The judge also noted that the government nonetheless “proceeded in this
case against Izhar Khan in good faith.”

After the judge’s verdict, the defendant hugged defense lawyer Joseph
Rosenbaum and members of his Margate mosque shook each other’s hands,
quietly celebrating.

Liars or Heroes?

That's the question for the jury today in the case of Raul Iglesias, the Miami police officer on trial for allegedly planting evidence. The prosecution has called the witnesses heroes and the defense has called them liars.  I know this was a hard fought battle between Rick Diaz for the defense and Rick Del Toro and Michael Berger for the prosecution, in a case where the defendant testified. 

Should be interesting to see what happens.  More from closing (via the Miami Herald):

“We had four eyewitnesses — police officers who stood up to corruption, who stood up to what was wrong,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Ricardo Del Toro told the 12-member jury during closing arguments Wednesday.
“What reason do these guys have to lie? None,” added fellow prosecutor Michael Berger. “Which person has the only reason to lie? That’s the defendant. And that’s because his liberty, his job and his livelihood are at stake.”
***
On Wednesday, his defense attorney, Rick Diaz, argued that none of the four detectives in Iglesias’ unit testified that they ever witnessed him stealing drugs seized from street dealers, and only one claimed he saw the supervisor swipe money confiscated from a trafficker in April 2010. Diaz said that detective’s testimony was a lie, pointing out that the dealer testified at trial that he had no money on him.
Diaz told jurors that an anonymous letter was sent on April 13, 2010, to Miami police’s Internal Affairs, claiming Iglesias stole drugs and money from dealers two to three times a week over a four-month period. He said it was written by detectives seeking revenge against their new boss because he was trying to tame the “undisciplined” squad and transfer a few officers.
“That letter came back and hit them in the head like a boomerang,” Diaz told jurors, adding that the prosecution’s case doesn’t “mathematically” add up. He suggested that Iglesias’ former undercover officers, internal-affairs detectives and FBI agents were “trying to set this man up.”
Diaz strived to portray Iglesias, an 18-year police veteran who served with the Marines in the Iraq War, as a man of character who deserved to be acquitted on all nine counts.
“This is all or nothing for Raul Iglesias,” Diaz implored jurors. “Make no mistake about it.”

A houseboat is a house!

So says the High Court (at least in this case) in a nice win for local Fane Lozman in: Lozman v. Riviera Beach.  Prior blog coverage here.

Lozman was pro se in the district court case here in the SDFLA, but ended up being represented by a number of high powered lawyers, including Jeffrey Fischer. 

Here's SCOTUSBlog's coverage of the decision today:

Casting aside the simplistic notion that “anything that floats” is a watercraft whose use and activity is controlled by maritime law, the Supreme Court on Tuesday installed a “reasonable observer” at dockside to make the judgment about whether a floating structure qualifies, or not, as a “vessel.” The vote was seven to two, in favor of a maverick Florida owner of a houseboat who was constantly in hot water with marina owners, but now appears to have the last word: the marina probably will have to pay him, not the other way around.
The dissenters complained that the Court was introducing confusion and complexity into what should be straightforward and explicit, and thus upsetting the expectations of the entire maritime industry. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, insisted that its “reasonable observer” test would work in the real world of floating structures.

While this case turned on a boxy two-story floating home that Fane Lozman had lived in at various marinas in Florida, the Court treated his case (Lozman v. Riviera Beach, 11-626) as one with considerably wider impact on maritime law. What came out of it, in the end, was a reliance upon the traditional legal figure of the “reasonable man” (to be politically correct, now the “reasonable observer”) to make a common-sense assessment of the physical characteristics and activities of a floating structure, and then decide whether it was meant to be a vehicle of water transportation. Courts, of course, will be deciding what the “reasonable observer” would see, presumably on a case-by-case basis.
Under this test, not all houseboats will be exempt from maritime regulation, since many of them have motors to propel them, so a reasonable view of them is likely to be that they can be moved over water, carrying goods and people. But neither will all dockside structures used as homes, and ill-fitted for gliding over the waves, come under the new definition, because they probably will not be seen as transport vessels. It may take some time, and quite a bit of litigation, to see the difference between them, and between other floating structures.