An Unusual Decision Not to Publish - by Guest Blogger Brian Toth

An Unusual Decision Not to Publish - by Brian Toth

 

Earlier this year, Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the court’s decision not to review a ruling by the Fourth Circuit reviving a habeas petitioner’s claim that he was sentenced too harshly by a vindictive judge. The dissent in Plumley v. Austin was notable mostly for its sharp criticism of the Fourth Circuit’s choice to label its decision “unpublished”—that is, without precedential effect. The Fourth Circuit’s decision was 40 pages long, rendered after oral argument, contained a dissent, and, in Justice Thomas’s view, satisfied three criteria for publishing decisions. “It is hard to imagine,” Justice Thomas wrote, “a reason that the Court of Appeals would not have published this opinion except to avoid creating binding law for the Circuit.”

Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in United States v. Rivero affirming a 30-year sentence for a 56-year-old defendant who pleaded guilty to possession with an intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana. Because Mr. Rivero qualified as a career offender, his advisory-guidelines range was 188 to 235 months. The government recommended that Mr. Rivero be sentenced toward to bottom of that range, but the district court, citing his lengthy criminal history, sentenced him to 360 months in prison—the statutory maximum. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision was rendered after oral argument and over a forceful dissent by the panel’s only active judge, Judge Martin, who addressed not just Mr. Rivero’s case but also the court’s precedents on sentencing. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Rivero, like the Fourth Circuit’s in Austin, was unpublished. Why?

In certain respects, the panel’s choice not to publish Rivero seems sound, and might even, to some, be preferable. Mr. Rivero’s first argument on appeal—was he a career offender?—was foreclosed by precedent, and applying precedent to new cases rarely justifies publication alone. And the majority disposed of Mr. Rivero’s challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence by carefully hewing to the court’s precedents and to its highly deferential standard of review. Plus, the decision doesn’t create binding precedent for imposing on other defendants, in Judge Martin’s words, “an extraordinary sentence for what seems to be an ordinary crime.” The court metes out tough justice for Mr. Rivero, but only for Mr. Rivero. 

But for those who closely follow the Eleventh Circuit, that yesterday’s decision is unpublished may seem unusual. The Eleventh Circuit takes special interest in sentencing, and nearly always seems to publish decisions involving large variances (only death-penalty cases get similar automatic-publication treatment). Further, because we want similarly situated defendants to be sentenced similarly—and because, presumably, we want the process in which they are sentenced to be similar, too—publishing decisions involving sentencing is important. The court, moreover, publishes many decisions where, as in Rivero, there has been oral argument. And although it’s common for the Eleventh Circuit to dispose of an appeal in an unpublished decision after oral argument where the result is clear, it’s not common to do so where there has been a strong dissent by the only active judge on the panel. And the facts of this case are compelling: Mr. Rivero, a 56-year-old man, indeed has a long criminal history, but he was given a tough sentence for, according to the majority, an “unremarkable” current offense. And the government recommended a bottom-of-the-guidelines sentence as well. In short, this is not your run-of-the-mill sentencing case. 

Courts don’t say why they publish their decisions; per the Eleventh Circuit’s internal operating procedures, the choice is up to the majority of the panel. Thus, why Rivero is unpublished is anybody’s guess. But I suspect that a principal reason was, as Justice Thomas observed in Austin, “to avoid creating binding law for the Circuit.” If so, then the question still remains, Why?

I don’t know and, to be clear, I’m not criticizing the majority’s choice not to publish Rivero. But one by-product of its decision seems clear: the likelihood of en banc review is greatly reduced, for there is little reason for the full court to undertake the arduous process of reviewing a decision that doesn’t bind it or lower courts. In dissent, Judge Martin observed that she was “aware of no published opinion in which we have held that an above-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.” If Rivero had been published, her observation would remain true. But it would also be true that the likelihood of en banc review—and therefore the likelihood of a published opinion in which an above-guidelines sentence was held to be substantively unreasonable—would have been greater.

"Was Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial necessary?"

That's the provocative headline to this Nancy Gertner op-ed.  If Tsarnaev would have pleaded guilty to life without parole and where Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, should we have used all of these federal resources on a trial?  A snippet:

Perhaps Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to show that the government does not need Guantanamo or military tribunals to secure the death penalty for those accused of terrorism. Perhaps he believed that any lesser punishment would expose the administration to criticism about the softness of the civilian system and reopen the floodgates to military tribunals. But that political calculation hardly justifies what the government seeks here, its costs, its emotional toll on the victims and on the city, the likelihood of extensive appeals, even the risk of error, particularly when there was another alternative — a plea of guilty in exchange for life without parole.
Following such a plea, the victims would have spoken at length at a sentencing proceeding, directly confronting Tsarnaev. Their narratives would have been no less compelling than what we have heard the past few weeks. The focus would have been on them, and only them. And once life without parole was imposed, the case would have been over, completely and totally. There would have been no appeals.

***
In some ways, this phase may be more difficult than the first phase. At this point, the focus necessarily shifts to Tsarnaev and away from the victims. More troubling, the jury’s life-and-death decision could be taking place at the same time as the second anniversary of the bombing. Boston is gearing up for the Marathon, and jurors will be passing the banners, the familiar sights of Marathon Monday, coupled with the city’s commemoration of the tragedy. Jurors are supposed to tune out the press. While it is difficult in a high-profile case, here their efforts will have to be extraordinary. And any juror’s exposure to the emotional and intense coverage could put the entire trial at risk on appeal.
The choices for the government should not be a death finding in a civilian court, or a death finding in a military tribunal, lethal injection or a firing squad. Countless others accused of heinous crimes have pled guilty to a life without parole. There was another way. There still is.

Accusations against Dersh stricken

A justified win for Professor Dershowitz before Judge Marra.  Via the AP:

A federal judge rejected a bid by two women to join a high-profile sexual abuse lawsuit and ordered scandalous sex allegations against Britain's Prince Andrew and a prominent U.S. lawyer removed from the court record.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra's ruling Tuesday came in a case involving wealthy financier Jeffrey Epstein. The two women, identified as Jane Does No. 3 and No. 4, claim to be among dozens of women Epstein sexually abused as teenagers at locations ranging from a Palm Beach mansion to a private Caribbean island to a sprawling New Mexico ranch.
The women wanted to join a lawsuit filed by other alleged victims. The lawsuit against the U.S. government seeks to reopen a non-prosecution agreement Epstein reached with federal prosecutors. Epstein pleaded guilty more than six years ago to state sex offenses and served a 13-month jail sentence, but could have gotten a much longer prison term if the Justice Department had brought charges.
Federal prosecutors opposed allowing the two Jane Does to join the lawsuit, which was filed in 2008, and Marra agreed.
"Justice does not require amendment in this instance," the judge wrote.
Marra also ordered sensational allegations against Prince Andrew and well-known lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a former Harvard Law School professor, stricken from the court record. Both denied any wrongdoing, with Dershowitz contending in his own court filings that Jane Doe No. 3 made up sex abuse stories involving him. Buckingham Palace stood by Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II who is also known as the Duke of York.
Marra said the sex abuse details had no bearing on the lawsuit's goal of reopening the Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
"The factual details regarding with whom and where the Jane Does engaged in sexual activities are immaterial and impertinent to this central claim," the judge wrote. "These unnecessary details shall be stricken."
Buckingham Palace had no comment Tuesday, referring to its past denials. Dershowitz, in a statement, called the decision "a vindication of my position" and said it should serve as a warning to attorneys against making unsupported allegations.

Full Disclosure -- I'm quoted in this article in support of the decision.

Update -- Dersh is on the record with ATL:

This isn’t the end of all Epstein-related litigation for Professor Dershowitz. He’s still a defendant in that libel action filed against him by Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards, counsel to Jane Doe #3 aka Virginia Roberts. But Professor Dershowitz might actually welcome the continuation of that case. With his involvement in the Jane Doe case now over, the defamation case may be the best avenue for completely disproving the allegations against him.
UPDATE (2:45 p.m.): I just raised this possibility in email correspondence with Professor Dershowitz, and he agreed: “Right. I won’t rest until she admits she made it up.”
In his 1982 memoir, The Best Defense (affiliate link), Professor Dershowitz wrote, “Sometimes the public has to be reminded that the word criminal in criminal lawyer — like the word baby in baby doctor — is a description not of the professional, but rather of the clientele.” Alan Dershowitz might represent criminals, but he’s no criminal himself — and those who allege otherwise do so at their peril.

WSJ covers SDFLA as "most productive court"

The blog reported on this previously, and today the WSJ has the numbers:

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the front office of the federal judiciary, has done the legwork to figure out which of the 94 federal trial courts cut through its caseload most efficiently in the fiscal year that ended in September 2014.
The AO ranked U.S. district courts by hours on the bench, hours in trial, and number of civil and criminal trials. At the top of the 2014 list is the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The Miami-based court was No. 1 in trial hours, No. 2 in hours on the bench, No. 15 in civil trials and No. 5 in criminal trials.
The “America’s Most Productive” rankings don’t include court-specific data. The average judge, nationally, spent 364 hours on the bench and 182.7 hours in trial, and conducted four civil trials and 3.5 criminal trials in 2014.
A disclaimer: These numbers are likely inflated, because they don’t account for the work of senior U.S. district judges, who opt to work a reduce caseload instead of retiring.
Chief Judge K. Michael Moore of Florida’s Southern District said civil cases that go to trial in his court take about 16 months from start to finish, while cases that settle prior to trial resolve themselves, on average, in six months.
In fiscal 2014, the number of civil and criminal cases filed per judge in the Southern District, which also encompasses Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, was 695, compared to the national average of 533.
Judge Moore, whose court ranked No. 2 overall in 2013, said his aim is to promote a culture in which lawyers know that “you’re going to have to complete your task in a defined amount of time.”
“Holding lawyers to a trial date is the biggest incentive for them to do the work that they need to do,” he said. “The days of judges sitting back and being passive participants in the case-management system are gone.”

Still, judicial vacancies are growing and the Senate isn't doing anything.  Sen. Leahy is pissed:

We are now three months into the new Congress with Republicans in the majority.  The Republican reign thus far has been defined by an attempt to shut down the Department of Homeland Security; a refusal to even allow a floor vote on an eminently qualified nominee for Attorney General; and the decision to inject a partisan abortion fight in what is otherwise an uncontroversial bill to build on our efforts to combat human trafficking.  On top of all of this, the Senate Republican Leadership has been unwilling to bring up for a vote any of the judicial nominees pending on the Executive Calendar.  Not one.   
The refusal by the Senate Republican leadership to schedule votes on any Federal judges is completely contrary to historical precedent.  This is also in stark contrast to the way Democrats treated President Bush’s judicial nominees.  During the Bush administration we were able to reduce overall judicial vacancies from 110 down to 28.  In the 17 months I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee during President Bush’s first two years in office, the Senate confirmed 100 Federal circuit and district court judges.  I also served as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee during the last two years of the Bush administration and continued to hold regular hearings on judges and we confirmed 68 district and circuit court judges in those last two years.
The Senate must continue to fulfill its constitutional obligation of advice and consent.  The fact that we are in the last two years of this presidency does not mean our work is done.  In the last two years of the Clinton administration, 73 judges were confirmed, and in the last two years of the Reagan administration, 83 judges were confirmed.  I have heard Senate Republicans state that 11 of the judges confirmed in the lame duck last year should count towards confirmations this year.  That is a bizarre claim.  Prior Congresses have always confirmed consensus nominees prior to long recesses.  And Senate Democrats were only forced to do so because Republican obstruction had left judicial vacancies close to or exceeding 90 through the first six years of this President’s tenure.

H/T Glenn Sugameli

Mikhail Gorbachev sentenced to 6 years to lottery scam

Okay, okay -- not that Mikhail Gorbachev.  Actually this guy's name is Mikhail Gorbachev George Williams.  Paula McMahon has the story:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bertha Mitrani said Williams squandered a second chance he was given in 2010 when investigators from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service warned him that money he received was part of a lottery or sweepstakes scam. Williams, a Jamaican citizen, was warned he could face prosecution if he continued to participate.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom rejected a request from defense lawyer John Cotrone to go easy on Williams.
"You had an opportunity to walk away from this criminal activity and you did not," the judge told Williams. She reminded him he had admitted taking money from elderly people who were deceived by him and his cohorts in South Florida and Jamaica.
Though Williams apologized, he tried to split hairs with the judge during his sentencing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale. He claimed he had no direct contact with the victims, did not realize how old they were and only took a percentage of the money before sending on the rest to Jamaica.
"That might be an attempt to minimize your conduct, sir, but I don't see it that way," the judge politely told him. The victims' lives were destroyed by the fraud and his punishment had to be "meaningful" and deter him and others, she said.

Meantime, there's a trial going on where a witness is wearing a disguise in a closed courtroom -- and this isn't in Russia.  It's right here in Miami:

Two FBI undercover employees can testify at a terrorism trial in a Miami federal courtroom closed to the public, a judge ruled Friday, citing national security concerns.
***In court papers, Miami attorney Silvia Piñera-Vazquez argued the prosecution’s demands would deprive her client of a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution. She asserted the “government's actions in this case are eerily similar" to the prosecution described in Franz Kafka's The Trial.
In the classic novel, the attorney noted, “a bank teller was arrested and prosecuted by a remote, unidentified authority, of an unidentified crime, by unidentified witnesses, and eventually executed.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article17342588.html#storylink=cpy

“So much for post racial America.”

That was Judge Marcia Cooke on her Facebook page after a run-in with Bay Harbor Islands town council candidate Kenneth Eskin.  The Herald has the story here.  And here is the Judge's Facebook post describing the incident:

My Facebook posts are pretty neutral, and rarely personal. Today's post is personal and I doubt it will evoke neutral response(s).
It is approximately 9:30 am. I am leaving for work. Hence I am dressed in the female legal eagle/corporate attire: navy blue suit, pearls and pumps. I am carrying a coordinating bag and briefcase. As I approach my car, a man approaches me with leaflets. Our town elections are in a few weeks and I assume he is a candidate for one of the vacant council seats. Many candidates come to the condos and do the meet and greet. As I approach my car, the conversation:
He: ‘What family do you work for?’
Me: ‘Excuse me, I live here.’
He: ‘Oh’
Me: ‘Yes, for over twenty-years.’
He: ‘Oh.’
As he tries to hand me campaign literature, I get in my car and drive away.
Yes, Kenneth Eskin, I live in Bay Harbor Islands.
So much for post racial America.

 Eskin responded to the Herald:

“I’m not going to deny it. It wasn’t malicious, I asked a question,” Eskin said. “If I offended her, I would apologize to her. I certainly meant nothing by it. There was nothing racially inspired.”
Eskin, 69, is running for a seat on the Bay Harbor Town Council. The election is April 21.
He said he approached Cooke on Tuesday morning while she was putting things away in her car and asked what family she worked for. He said he was trying to pass out campaign leaflets in the parking lot because he was not allowed inside the condo building.
Eskin said that he had no idea who Cooke was and that he had made an assumption because of the town’s racial makeup. Bay Harbor Islands is home to 5,854 people, 92 percent of whom are white.
“It’s a quick thing when you introduce yourself to strangers. You only have five seconds. I don’t know if that’s an excuse,” Eskin said. “There is like 3 percent of people of color on this entire island. You never know who you are talking to.”

Yikes.

"She shrieked with joy."

That was Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso after learning that his clemency petition for 48-year old Valarie Bozeman was successful.  Paula McMahon covers this great story:

Broward woman who is serving life in federal prison for a crack cocaine conviction is one of 22 people whose prison terms were commuted Tuesday by President Barack Obama.
Valarie Bozeman, 48, of Pompano Beach, who was also known as Theresa Brown, was sentenced to life in prison for a 1993 drug case. She has served more than 20 years in prison.
"She shrieked with joy," said Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso of the phone call when he told Bozeman the president was giving her a second chance. "This is a woman who is completely reformed. She is ecstatic that she can get back to South Florida. She just wants to be reunited with her family and be a productive member of society."

Bozeman's appeal and several attempts to get her life term reduced were all rejected by the courts. She is currently an inmate in Dublin, Calif., and is now scheduled to be released July 28.
Bozeman had some unlikely supporters: U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro, the trial and sentencing judge, advocated for her early release, according to her defense team.
"[Valarie] wanted me to thank Judge Ungaro for her support all these years and for not forgetting her. She said that this only happened because Judge Ungaro has been her champion," Caruso said.
Ungaro had an aide respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The aide said the judge would "like to comment but she doesn't think it would be appropriate to do so."
Several officials from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons also wrote letters of recommendation for Bozeman and said she worked hard in prison and became a mentor to many other prisoners.
***
Bozeman's petition to have her prison term commuted was handled by Caruso, the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Florida, and Assistant Federal Public Defender Abigail Becker.
In an August 2008 letter to the trial and sentencing judge, Bozeman wrote that she had already served a lengthy punishment.
"I've done my time for the crime; it doesn't take me coming out of prison in a body bag to make the government succeed … I am rehabilitated. I won't fail myself, you or society. I have children and grandchildren," Bozeman wrote.
"I would like for you to grant me mercy and allow me to help society with the programs that are out there for the youth of today … How would they know there's a better way? How would they know unless someone is sent to tell them?"
Her mother, Nancy Bozeman, 72, of Pompano Beach, said her family is grateful to God, the president, her daughter's lawyers and Judge Ungaro.
"I do believe my daughter is one changed person and that I know in my heart," she said. "It's a very small house we live in but, praise God, we are going to have one very big party for her."

Congratulations to Michael Caruso and Abby Becker.  Well done.

Also a big shout out to Judge Ungaro for stepping up on this case.  Judges can make a difference.

Judge Mark Fuller Strikes Back...

...and claims that his drunk wife was faking it on the 911 call.  The "Brad Blog" has all of the details:

The Birmingham attorney for U.S. District Court Judge Mark Fuller says that, despite 911 audio which seems to suggest otherwise, his client "never hit, punched, slapped or kicked" his wife Kelli in an Atlanta hotel room last year. The federal judge was simply defending himself from the "hysterical" rage of his wife who, the attorney now tells The BRAD BLOG, blatantly lied to police about the entire incident before his client was subsequently arrested on charges of domestic battery.
Moreover, Barry Ragsdale tells us, Kelli Fuller was "drunk" when she called 911. He says "slap" sounds heard clearly on the audio tape as she told the 911 dispatcher she was being beaten and needed an ambulance were either an attempt by Judge Fuller's wife to "imitate the sounds of slapping" or just "random background noises produced by someone who was intoxicated and hysterical."

Another area where our criminal justice system is failing

This time it's prisons.  The N.Y. Times Magazine took a close look at our prison system and it isn't pretty. The first article is about our SuperMax.  It's really really bad:

Inmates at the ADX spend approximately 23 hours of each day in solitary confinement. Jones had never been so isolated before. Other prisoners on his cellblock screamed and banged on their doors for hours. Jones said the staff psychiatrist stopped his prescription for Seroquel, a drug taken for bipolar disorder, telling him, “We don’t give out feel-good drugs here.” Jones experienced severe mood swings. To cope, he would work out in his cell until he was too tired to move. Sometimes he cut himself. In response, guards fastened his arms and legs to his bed with a medieval quartet of restraints, a process known as four-pointing.

 The second is about Norway's prison system and its attempt to rehabilitate:

To anyone familiar with the American correctional system, Halden seems alien. Its modern, cheerful and well-­appointed facilities, the relative freedom of movement it offers, its quiet and peaceful atmosphere — these qualities are so out of sync with the forms of imprisonment found in the United States that you could be forgiven for doubting whether Halden is a prison at all. It is, of course, but it is also something more: the physical expression of an entire national philosophy about the relative merits of punishment and forgiveness.

The treatment of inmates at Halden is wholly focused on helping to prepare them for a life after they get out. Not only is there no death penalty in Norway, there are no life sentences. The maximum term for any crime is 21 years — even for Anders Behring Breivik, who is responsible for probably the deadliest recorded rampage in the world, in which he killed 77 people and injured hundreds more in 2011 by detonating a bomb at a government building in Oslo and then opening fire at a nearby summer camp. “Better out than in” is an unofficial motto of the Norwegian Correctional Service, which makes a reintegration guarantee to all released inmates. It works with other government agencies to secure a home, a job and access to a supportive social network for each inmate before release; Norway’s social safety net also provides health care, education and a pension to all citizens. With one of the highest per capita gross domestic products of any country in the world, thanks to the profits from oil production in the North Sea, Norway is in a good position to provide all of this, and spending on the Halden prison runs to more than $93,000 per inmate per year, compared with just $31,000 for prisoners in the United States, according to the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization.

 That might sound expensive. But if the United States incarcerated its citizens at the same low rate as the Norwegians do (75 per 100,000 residents, versus roughly 700), it could spend that much per inmate and still save more than $45 billion a year. At a time when the American correctional system is under scrutiny — over the harshness of its sentences, its overreliance on solitary confinement, its racial disparities — citizens might ask themselves what all that money is getting them, besides 2.2 million incarcerated people and the hardships that fall on the families they leave behind. The extravagant brutality of the American approach to prisons is not working, and so it might just be worth looking for lessons at the opposite extreme, here in a sea of blabaerskog, or blueberry forest.

 Our system clearly isn't working.  Both Republicans and Democrats agree on this.  Think about that for a second -- both sides, who can't agree on anything, agree our criminal justice system is not working: from overcriminalization, to our prisons, to our sentencing guidelines, to Brady issues, and on and on.  People want change.

But our judges are awfully quiet on these topics.  Sure, the Supreme Court talks the talk about overcriminalization (Yeager), and the occasional judge (see, e.g., Judge Gleeson and Judge Kozinski) actually does something about the executive going too far.  But by and large, the judiciary hasn't stepped up as a check against the executive branch on criminal justice issues, and unfortunately, that's why we find ourselves where we do. 

Come on, Southern District of Florida Judges! Giving a 3 or 6 month variance here and there isn't going to change the system.  It's time to act and make a difference.  Where the government overcharges, dismiss an indictment.  Where the sentencing guidelines are absurd for first time non-violent offenders, give a reasonable sentence that doesn't include jail.  Where our executive branch -- including BOP -- goes too far, step up!  Avengers Assemble!

SDFLA ranks second in courtroom hours per judge

Here's an interesting piece on judicial productivity by Judge William Young and Jordan Singer.  It discusses how courtroom hours are way down across the board.  But our District still has quite a bit of in court hours, and we rank second in that category at 661 hours per judge in 2013.

Thanks to my one of my favorite tipsters for the info.

Here's another interesting piece by Josh Blackmon on the "disrespectful dissent."  As you can imagine, Justice Scalia leads the way with dissents without respect:

At the end of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, he dropped the jurisprudential mic.Accordingly, I dissent.Much like Rodney Dangerfield, Justice Breyer’s majority opinion gets no respect. Justice Scalia is no stranger to the disrespectful dissent. ***In first place (surprising no one) is Justice Scalia with 8 disrespectful dissents (counting the Alabama case). Second place was Justice Breyer with 4. RBG had had 3. Thomas and the Chief each had one. The Chief’s dissent was in his first year on the Court! Interestingly, Justices Stevens, Souter, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan had zero. 

11th Circuit argument centers on "dildos and cock rings"

No joke.  While David Ovalle was waiting to see the Lolita arguments, he got to see Paul Petruzzi argue that his client -- a drama teacher convicted of attempting to have sex with a 16-year old former student -- was prejudiced by the passing around of this "highly inflammatory evidence" which was found in his client's car.  Petruzzi didn't hold back, openly discussing the evidence during his argument.  Ovalle had some fun with this on his twitter feed.  And Petruzzi got the last word.

Meantime, that wasn't the only argument with some excitement, as the Lolita supporters showed up this morning:

The government “rubber stamps” the license for the Miami Seaquarium despite the park keeping Lolita the killer whale in inhumane conditions, an animal rights group told a federal appeals court Tuesday.The “highly intelligent” whale is kept in a tank that is too small and “without shelter from the hot Miami sun and without the company of another orca,” a lawyer for the Animal Defense Fund told a three-judge panel Tuesday.Tuesday’s court battle was the latest push in a long-running campaign to free Lolita, a 20-foot, 7,000-pound killer whale that has performed at the Virginia Key marine park for over four decades. The whale, captured in the cool ocean waters of the Pacific Northwest, was recently added to a federal endangered species list, a protection given to her wild family nearly a decade ago.The court hearing was packed with Lolita supporters, some wearing T-shirts emblazoned with her name.Over the decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has routinely renewed the Seaquarium exhibitor’s license — a practice that became the focal point of a 2012 lawsuit filed by the ADF and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.At issue: Lolita’s supporters believe the annual license renewal flies in the face of the 1967 Animal Welfare Act, which calls for the “humane” care and treatment of marine mammals. Seaquarium managers have repeatedly rebuffed the accusations, saying the killer whale, long a top attraction, is well care for and healthy.A South Florida federal judge threw out the initial lawsuit but Lolita supporters appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 11th Circuit, which granted Tuesday’s oral arguments held in downtown Miami.

Gotta love Miami!

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article16159679.html#storylink=cpy

Lolita the whale to face 11th Circuit today

David Ovalle has the story:

A federal appeals court will entertain arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging the captivity of Lolita, the killer whale who has performed at the Miami Seaquarium for decades.Animal-rights activists have long argued that Lolita, captured in the Pacific Northwest decades ago, lives in a tank far smaller than those holding other captive killer whales. The Animal Legal Defense Fund and others sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture but lost.Their appeal will be heard Tuesday morning in Miami by judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 11th [Circuit]. Last month, federal authorities added the aging whale – who has been in captivity for more than 40 years – to the endangered species list, a protection given her wild family nearly a decade ago.

“Cattywampus, onomatopoeia and antidisestablishmentarianism. Now, backto your question”

That was Wisconsin Badger Nigel Hayes having some fun with a stenographer at a press conference after the game:

When asked about his unexpected words, Hayes explained his fascination with the stenographer’s job. “She does an amazing job of typing words, sometimes if words are not in her dictionary, maybe if I say soliloquy right now, she may have to work a little bit harder to type that word,” Hayes said, “or quandary, zephyr, Xylophone, things like that, that make her job really interesting.”

I thought our court reporters would get a kick out of that.

Meantime, it's spring break, so the traffic is supposed to be good this week.  But not so much (via the Herald):

A major shift in traffic on the Dolphin Expressway will disrupt driving routines as construction enters a new phase at one of South Florida’s busiest highway interchanges.Starting early Sunday, traffic going west on State Road 836, which now stays to the right, will be shifted to the left lanes. And traffic headed to State Road 826, the Palmetto Expressway, West Flagler Street or Northwest 87th Avenue/NW 12th Street will be shifted to the right lanes.The shift is only the latest major milestone in the $560 million project to overhaul the massive interchange linking 836 with 826, partly funded by federal stimulus money. The construction project, which began in 2009, is expected to be finished in the first three months of 2016.The change on Sunday, when traffic is lighter, could cause confusion, congestion and delays among the commuting crowd during Monday’s rush hour and beyond.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article15083315.html#storylink=cpy

And for those stuck in traffic, here's the question of the day -- should you be able to have a specialty license plate with a confederate flag.  The Supreme Court is hearing argument this morning.  From the AP:

The Supreme Court is weighing a free-speech challenge to Texas' refusal to issue a license plate bearing the Confederate battle flag.Specialty plates are big business in Texas, where drivers spent $17.6 million last year to choose from among more than 350 messages the state allows. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 877,000 vehicles among more than 19 million cars, pickup trucks and motorcycles registered in Texas carry a specialty plate.But a state motor vehicle board turned down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag, similar to plates issued by eight other states that were members of the Confederacy, as well as Maryland.The justices are hearing arguments Monday over whether the state violated the group's First Amendment rights.

 

Judge Hoeveler event

I think Judge Hoeveler has now broken the record for awards/events in a judge's honor!  Here's a picture from the St. Thomas event this week (by Melissa Visconti):

New Clerk of the 11th Circuit

I missed this announcement back in February:

Chief Judge Ed Carnes has announced that Douglas J. Mincher will succeed John P. Ley as the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Mr. Mincher has served as chief deputy clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia since 2010. He holds a BA degree in political science and history from Youngstown State University and earned his MS degree in Judicial Administration from the University of Denver, College of Law. Mr. Mincher has nearly 25 years of experience as a court administrator in federal, state, and municipal courts. He is married to Diana Mincher, and they are the parents of three adult children.

Why she's NOTORIOUS RBG

Gotta love her expression in Pelosi's selfie:

More judgeships in the SDFLA?

The U.S. Courts Judicial Conference is recommending 3 more judgeships in our District.  From the press release:

In other action, today the Conference adopted the results of the biennial judgeship survey conducted by its Judicial Resources Committee, which identified the need for five new appellate and 68 district judgeships. The Judicial Conference has provided the Director of the Administrative Office with the authority to seek separate legislation for Conference-approved judgeships in selected districts, providing the Judiciary with more flexibility in pursuing new judgeships in courts with the greatest needs.
Since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted nearly 25 years ago, the number of cases filed in the U.S. courts of appeals increased by 28 percent and the number of cases filed in the district courts increased by 41 percent – civil filings grew by 40 percent and criminal filings by 43 percent.
The 26-member Judicial Conference is the policy-making body for the federal court system. By statute the Chief Justice serves as its presiding officer and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference meets twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.

H/T Glenn Sugameli

What will happen to Judge Fuller?

We may find out this week.  From the LA Times:

Federal District Judge Mark E. Fuller was controversial even before he was arrested on allegations of beating his wife last year.
The Alabama judge was criticized for sitting on cases brought by the government even as his aviation company was getting hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded business. Appointed by a Republican, he was denounced for putting a former Democratic governor in manacles after a corruption conviction.
He was the talk of the courthouse for having an extramarital affair with his courtroom assistant, and for his messy public divorce.
Fuller, 56, is now battling bipartisan calls to resign over a fight he had seven months ago with the same former courtroom assistant, whom he'd married. The argument started after she accused Fuller of cheating on her with his law clerk.
Adding to Fuller's problems was that a few weeks after he was arrested, video was released of NFL star running back Ray Rice knocking his fiancee unconscious, putting a national spotlight on spousal abuse. The Baltimore Ravens dropped Rice.
"If an NFL player can lose his job because of domestic violence, then a federal judge should definitely not be allowed to keep his lifetime appointment to the federal bench," said Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.).
Sewell and both of Alabama's Republican senators, along with other members of the state's congressional delegation, have called on Fuller to step down.
Fuller's judicial career now rests largely with a five-judge review panel that has investigated his behavior and is expected to release its findings this month. A House of Representatives committee is gearing up for possible impeachment hearings against Fuller, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002.
Retired Alabama federal Judge U.W. Clemon, who as chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Birmingham dealt with similar ethical issues, said that Fuller's constitutional appointment may not be enough to save his job.
When a judge's behavior results in him "being thrown in jail like a common criminal, that's not within the conduct that is condoned by the Constitution," Clemon said.
Kelli Fuller, the former court assistant who was divorced from Fuller after the incident, has not spoken in public about what happened at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Atlanta last August. But her version is amply represented in police files.
"He's beating on me! Please help me," Kelli Fuller pleaded to a police dispatcher, who called for an ambulance and could be heard telling a co-worker, "I can hear him hitting her now."

If an NFL player can lose his job because of domestic violence, then a federal judge should definitely not be allowed to keep his lifetime appointment to the federal bench. - Rep. Terri A. Sewell (D-Ala.)

The policeman who entered the hotel room found her with "visible lacerations to her mouth and forehead" and said the room smelled of alcohol.
"Mrs. Fuller stated when she confronted him about their issues, he pulled her hair and threw her to the ground and kicked her," the police report said. "Mrs. Fuller also stated she was dragged around the room and Mr. Fuller hit her in the mouth several times with his hands."
Judge Fuller was taken to jail, where he spent the night on a charge of misdemeanor battery. But he avoided a criminal record by agreeing to a pretrial diversion program, including a drug and alcohol evaluation and 24 sessions of domestic violence counseling.
Nebraska federal court Judge Richard Kopf, who writes a blog about judicial issues, called it "a sweet deal."

Hope everyone enjoyed Pi day this weekend.  Get ready for March Madness this week.  (And yes, the Canes were robbed.)

Briefer briefs?

From the front page of the WSJ:

Before the current limit was established in the 1990s, briefs were capped at 50 pages, a rule dating back to when attorneys used typewriters. According to a 2,600-word “short history” of the last rule change prepared by a University of Pennsylvania law professor, lawyers were skirting the page limit by squeezing the space between lines, letters and words. So they decided a word limit would better discourage verbiage.
A judicial advisory committee made up of judges, lawyers and law professors selected by Chief Justice John Roberts now says that page-to-word conversion miscalculated how many words were in an average 50-page brief. The committee conducted a study finding that a typical page runs about 250 words. It did a new calculation—250 multiplied by 50—to come up with the 12,500 limit.
Lawyers say they’re skeptical of that logic. “Identifying a purported mathematical error that occurred 15 years ago does not provide a sound basis to change current policy,” wrote the Council of Appellate Lawyers, a nationwide group affiliated with the American Bar Association.
Michael Gans, clerk of the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, who oversaw the word-count study, says the process couldn’t have been more painstaking. It was carried out by a high-school graduate who interned at his office and spent a recent summer in a cubicle counting every single word of 200 printed-out briefs that served as the sample.
“I felt sorry for her, but that’s what she did all summer,” Mr. Gans said. “She still wants to go to law school.”
“It is harder to write a short opinion than a long opinion,” said Judge Silberman. “Perhaps that explains why some lawyers object. I think the computer is a bit problematic. It’s too easy to write too much.”

Justice Sotomayor spoke yesterday at Davidson:

She told a basketball court of seated students that she’d spoken at “countless” colleges and universities, and Davidson was the first school to seat students “front and center.”
Pointing to alumni and townspeople in the bleachers, she said: “Generally those guys are down here.”
The students cheered.
Sotomayor, the court’s third woman and first Hispanic justice, spoke honestly about her life and how her experiences have affected her nearly 25 years as a judge.
She was raised in public housing projects in New York’s South Bronx, primarily by her mother when her father suddenly died when she was 9.
After high school, she earned a scholarship to Princeton University, where “when I arrived, I thought I was an alien – not in a different land, but in a different world.”
“The people there had a better education than I did then,” she said. “They were taking spring breaks and flying places and they were traveling to Europe. Europe was a place I thought I’d never see.”
***
She said the current court could use more diversity of experiences. All its justices went to Ivy League schools, most are from the Northeast and none were defense lawyers before they took the bench. Few were small firm practitioners and many were academic lawyers. None, except for Sotomayor, had state government experience.
“That’s a bad thing,” she said. “We’re being asked to make decisions that affect every aspect of life. We’re reviewing state criminal law convictions every single day. It’s valuable to have someone there who can explain some of that.”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article13844528.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article13844528.html#storylink=cpy

 Oh yeah, and two terror brothers pleaded yesterday before Beth Bloom.  From Paula McMahon:

Two brothers from Oakland Park pleaded guilty to federal terrorism charges Thursday, admitting they plotted a terrorist attack on landmarks in New York City and later assaulted two deputy U.S. Marshals while in custody.
Raees Alam Qazi, 22, and Sheheryar Alam Qazi, 32, both pleaded guilty in federal court in Miami to one count of conspiring to provide support to terrorists and conspiring to assault two federal employees. The younger brother pleaded guilty to an additional charge of attempting to provide material support to al-Qaida.

Sheheryar Alam Qazi and brother Raees Alam Qazi, of Oakland Park, are accused of planning a terrorist attack in New York City and assaulting two deputy U.S. Marshals while in custody. They are charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; conspiracy to use a weapon of mass... (Photos courtesy of the Broward Sheriff's Office)

The Qazi brothers, who wore beige prison scrubs and were handcuffed, shackled and under tight security in court, both said "Guilty" when asked how they wanted to plead. They said little more than "Yes, ma'am" and "No, ma'am" in response to the judge's questions. Both men have thick beards, Sheheryar Qazi's hair was closely shaved and the younger brother's hair is about the same length as when he was arrested.

Chief Judge K. Michael Moore speaks to Federal Bar Association

It was a big turnout to see the new Chief in his first FBA talk, which went through the numbers of the district.  There were even graphs:

Supreme Court to review Florida death penalty

The Supreme Court granted cert on the following issue:

HURST, TIMOTHY L. V. FLORIDA: The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether Florida's death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).

Judge Martinez may be vindicated after all.

Weekend News and Notes

1. The biggest news this weekend is that charges are likely coming against Senator Menendez. Via the Miami Herald:

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez’s longtime friendship with a wealthy Palm Beach County eye doctor may soon come back to haunt the powerful Democrat from New Jersey.

The Department of Justice plans to file corruption charges against Menendez in the coming weeks, capping a two-year probe of his relationship with ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen, CNN and several major news outlets reported on Friday. And Melgen — a generous donor of trips and campaign money to Menendez — is under a separate investigation himself by a federal grand jury in West Palm Beach on allegations that his practice over-billed Medicare by millions of dollars.

Prosecutors and the FBI have been focusing on Menendez’s efforts on behalf of his political benefactor, including personally trying to resolve the physician’s high-stakes billing dispute with the taxpayer-funded Medicare program. During the period the senator sought to help the doctor, Menendez went on several trips with Melgen to the Dominican Republic on the physician’s private plane and stayed at his resort-area home in 2010 — all without reporting the gifts.

As the controversy about their relationship escalated two years ago, the senator quietly wrote a personal check to reimburse Melgen for the unreported trips, but that didn’t end several on-going federal probes.

On Friday evening, Menendez insisted during a news conference in his home state that he has done nothing wrong.

“Let me be very clear, I have always conducted myself appropriately and in accordance with the law,” he said. “Every action that I and my office have taken for the last 23 years that I have been privileged to be in the United States Congress has been based on pursuing the best policies for the people of New Jersey and this entire country.”

2. A businessman who helped smuggle Yasiel Puig to the U.S. was sentenced to 1 month by Judge Scola. From Curt Anderson:

A businessman who helped Los Angeles Dodgers star Yasiel Puig get out of Cuba to sign a rich American baseball contract was sentenced Friday to a month in prison and five months' house arrest for violating U.S. immigration laws.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola on Friday gave Gilberto Suarez, 41, less than the one-year maximum partly because his main role in the 2012 smuggling venture was having Puig driven in a taxi from Mexico City to the Texas border. Other conspirators, including boat captains and members of Mexico's violent Zetas drug gang, were involved in other stages of the trip.

Scola also said he was showing Suarez some leniency because Puig and others in the smuggling trip were threatened by the Zetas and possibly by corrupt Mexican police.

"I think the safety of the player and the other aliens was also paramount in his mind," the judge said.

Defense attorney Bijan Parwaresch said Suarez initially sought only to assist Puig in signing a Major League Baseball contract. Cuban players who defect often establish residency in a third country, such as Mexico, so they can sign lucrative free agent deals rather than smaller contracts if they come directly to the U.S. and are subjected to baseball's draft.

Where Suarez went wrong, he added, was deciding to take Puig to the U.S. border without immigration papers. Under the "wet foot, dry foot" policy, Cubans who reach U.S. territory are usually permitted to stay, even if their arrival is violates the law.

"It didn't start out with a criminal intent," Parwaresch said at a hearing. "It ended up as a criminal action."

3. Lazer Collazo to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, Jay Weaver reports:

Prominent Miami-Dade County baseball coach Lazaro “Lazer” Collazo plans to plead guilty to newly filed misdemeanor charges of possessing unlawful steroids, according to his defense attorney.

Collazo was among eight defendants who were originally charged in federal court with conspiring to distribute steroids through a Coral Gables anti-aging clinic, which was at the center of a Major League Baseball scandal.

Collazo, 51, was accused of distributing them to high school athletes, while the other seven were charged with supplying them to MLB players — including New York Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez, a onetime Miami-Dade high school standout.

Collazo’s defense attorney, Frank Quintero, confirmed Friday to the Miami Herald that his client has agreed to the terms of a plea deal with the U.S. attorney’s office that would recommend two years of probation. His change of plea hearing is scheduled for March 16.

4. SCOTUSblog got a day pass to the press box last week. Volokh has the story on the interesting work around:

A little wrinkle in the long-running quest of the renowned SCOTUSblog to secure credentials for its coverage of the Supreme Court: Today SCOTUSblog correspondent Amy Howe sat in the court’s press section by virtue of a day pass that the court has begun issuing to the blog. It’s the second such pass that SCOTUSblog has used, according to Publisher Tom Goldstein — with the first instance being Monday’s oral arguments on Arizona’s approach to redistricting.

“They have really tried to accommodate us,” says SCOTUSblog’s Goldstein. “They’re not trying to get in our way.”

SCOTUSblog has expended a grueling effort for credentials in the Supreme Court chamber, a process complicated by Goldstein himself: He’s both the publisher of the blog as well as a frequent Supreme Court practitioner as a partner in Goldstein & Russell, P.C. Just last month, the high court issued a new policy on press credentials that officially stiff-arms SCOTUSblog on getting its own credential but should make room for its veteran correspondent, Lyle Denniston, to continue covering proceedings with what’s known as a “hard pass.”

Denniston, a 57-year veteran of high court reporting, has long held his hard pass pursuant to his association with Boston NPR station WBUR. He’s now applying for a new pass under the auspices of his independent blog, “Lyle Denniston Law News.”

Here’s how the workaround operates: Denniston’s posts appear first on his eponymous blog, unedited. Then SCOTUSblog staff picks them up, edits them and posts a version on SCOTUSblog. Not all of the content on Denniston’s blog makes this migration. The arrangement allows the court to ensure that Denniston is acting as an independent journalist for his own outlet and not as an agent of Goldstein’s firm through SCOTUSblog, says Goldstein.

The day passes also help. Today, SCOTUSblog correspondent Howe used it to take in the entire oral argument in King v. Burwell, the much-watched case that threatens federal subsidies in 30-odd states that declined to set up their own health-care exchanges. Howe teamed up with a well-coordinated SCOTUSblog team, as Denniston also reported from the press section and two other SCOTUSbloggers took in the proceedings via piped-in audio in the Supreme Court’s lawyers’ lounge.

See you Monday

Sorry for the slow blogging the last few weeks. Lots of travel and work. But will be back to normal on Monday. Please email me any tips/stories/trial updates!

Cooperating witness killed in Haiti

Jacqueline Charles has the sad story here:

Oriel Jean — the former security chief of ex-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and whose testimony in U.S. courts a decade ago helped take down key figures in Haiti’s drug trafficking underworld — was shot to death Monday in Port-au-Prince.
Haiti National Police Spokesman Gary Desrosiers confirmed Jean’s murder between the Delmas 29 and 30 neighborhoods not far from the international airport. Desrosiers said he was shot twice by three men on a motorcycle. News of Jean’s death and photos of his bullet-riddled body lying face down in a pool of blood on the street quickly spread through social media.
A friend of Jean’s who declined to be named for fear of reprisals told the Miami Herald that Jean was riding with a Dominican co-worker when the vehicle was struck from behind by a motorcycle. Jean was gunned down after he stepped out of the vehicle to check the damage.
“Nothing happened to the Dominican guy. [Jean] was the main target,” the friend said.
In 2005, Jean was sentenced to three years in prison in a money-laundering plea deal after helping the U.S. Attorney’s Office convict several Haitians and Colombians of moving tons of Colombian cocaine through Haiti to the United States. Among those convicted were Haitian former top police officers — some of whom are back in Haiti after serving their sentences — and a powerful drug kingpin, Serge Edouard.
Edouard received a life sentence after Jean testified that the drug trafficker gave him and other law-enforcement officials hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect his cocaine shipments to the United States.
At Jean’s November 2005 sentencing, U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez complimented him for his “good work.” In his court testimony, Jean indirectly implicated Aristide and also testified against him before the grand jury. Aristide was never charged and the statue of limitations ran out before U.S. law-enforcement officials could prove that he collected kickbacks from traffickers.

11th Circuit investitures

The Daily Report covers them here:

Undeterred by wintry weather, federal appeals court judges gathering in Atlanta this week officially welcomed their two newest colleagues with kind words, food and drink.
A common theme for the separate investitures of Judges Julie Carnes and Jill Pryor was their both having the same last names as more senior members of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
"I know if you were here Monday you're tired of names jokes," quipped Chief Judge Ed Carnes at the second of the two ceremonies.
They also have long-standing relationships with the court. Speaking at Jill Pryor's investiture, Judge William Pryor Jr. noted that with the two new additions, seven of the court's 11 active judges once clerked at the court or its predecessor court, the Fifth Circuit. "Becoming a circuit judge was the ultimate way to return here for life," Bill Pryor said.
It has been a running joke that the last names of the two new judges from Georgia would create confusion. The chief judge said he and Julie Carnes had discussed how to minimize the confusion when she joined the circuit court, saying the incoming judge had pointed out that he was five months older than she and suggested they use "Carnes the Elder" and "Carnes the Younger." The chief judge instead has taken to calling his new colleague "Judge Julie."
"If there's any name confusion, it can only benefit me," he added. In welcoming her, the chief judge also said no judge had ever come to the Eleventh Circuit with the 22 years' experience as a district court judge that she brings. "We have never had a more qualified and experienced person," he said.
Chief Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. of the Northern District of Georgia also spoke, along with Willis Whichard, a former North Carolina Supreme Court justice who investigated Julie Carnes' qualifications for American Bar Association committee that rates judicial candidates. (She received a "unanimously well qualified" rating.) Thrash said his former colleague "was totally dedicated to doing what was in the best interests of the court."
Judge Julie Carnes referred to the chief as "Chief Judge Ed" and "my doppelgänger." She recalled how confusion between her and Ed Carnes began long ago, when she was being vetted for the district court job in the early 1990s. Her father, the late Fulton County State Court Judge Charles Carnes, saw a headline that read, "Carnes Being Considered for Eleventh Circuit." Not realizing the headline referred to Ed Carnes, instead of his daughter, her father "was thrilled ... then he started reading."
She also noted that a judge from another circuit apparently confused the two at one point, quoting an opinion written by Ed Carnes but referring to the judge by a female pronoun. And, in her own moment of self-deprecation, she said that she had stopped correcting lawyers who approached her at bar events and praised her writing style.
Julie Carnes said joining the appellate court amounted to a "homecoming," noting she had witnessed her first oral argument in the building that now houses the Eleventh Circuit when she was clerking for then-Fifth Circuit Judge Lewis Morgan, and delivered her first oral argument there, as well. She recalled that her father had briefly worked as a mail sorter in the building, which used to be a post office. "What a great country we live in," she said.
After Carnes' investiture on Monday afternoon, the judges remained in town for en banc oral arguments and meetings, returning to the en banc courtroom for another investiture late Wednesday afternoon.

Terrorism cases make bad law

In U.S. v. Said, covered by the Herald, the government is again asking to disguise a witness in an upcoming trial:

Prosecutors have taken the rare step of asking a federal judge to shut out the public during the testimony of two FBI undercover employees at an upcoming Miami trial of a Kenyan man accused of funneling money to al-Qaida splinter groups.The public, including the media, would be allowed to watch their testimony on closed circuit TV in a separate room in the downtown courthouse — but their images would be obscured in some manner during the terrorism trial.Prosecutors also want to allow the witnesses to be lightly disguised, such as wearing a closely cropped beard and black-rimmed glasses. One CIA officer did that during the 2007 Miami trial of al-Qaida recruit Jose Padilla. And they want the witnesses to use undercover pseudonyms to protect their true identities.The goal, sought by the FBI, is to safeguard the bureau’s counterterrorism operatives and investigations.“The defense shall be prohibited from asking any questions seeking personal identifying information from or about the [undercover employees],” the U.S. attorney’s office requested in a motion filed in February.The defense attorney for Mohamed Hussein Said, arrested in his native country after being targeted by an Internet sting operation based in Miami, views the government's demands as a violation of her client’s constitutional right to a fair trial — akin to a star chamber.Miami attorney Silvia Piñera-Vazquez countered in a court response that the “government’s actions in this case are eerily similar” to the prosecution described in Franz Kafka’s The Trial.In the classic 1937 novel, the attorney noted last week, “a bank teller was arrested and prosecuted by a remote, unidentified authority, of an unidentified crime, by unidentified witnesses, and eventually executed.”Piñera-Vazquez argues that expelling the public from the courtroom during the testimony of the “secret” witnesses and prohibiting any questions about their true identity “insulates” them from “any meaningful cross-examination, thus creating a unilateral, secret prosecution.”Last year, at a federal terrorism trial in Tampa, a judge fashioned a compromise after the Tampa Tribune objected to the prosecution’s efforts to bar the public during the testimony of an undercover employee. The arrangement allowed for an open courtroom, but with the employee testifying behind a screen so that no one in the gallery could see the witness.

Mary Barzee Flores nominated to District Bench

This is such great news.  Congrats to Mary Barzee Flores on this nomination!

Here's the White House press release:

Mary Barzee Flores: Nominee for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Mary Barzee Flores has been a shareholder at Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. since 2011, where her practice consists of complex commercial and employment litigation.  From 2003 to 2011, she served as a circuit judge on the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida in Miami, where she presided over both criminal and civil matters.  Prior to joining the bench, she worked in the Federal Public Defender’s Office of the Southern District of Florida from 1990 to 2003, serving first as an Assistant Federal Public Defender and then as a Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender.  She began her career as an associate at Sonnett, Sale and Kuehne, P.A.  She received her J.D. cum laude from the University of Miami Law School in 1988 and her B. Mus. from the University of Miami School of Music in 1985.