Blog update

Based on numerous e-mail recommendations, I've added links to our judges in the sidebar. And below the polls, there are a couple of links to blogs and websites that I check. More to follow.

New federal JNC

The Daily Business Review has an article today: New Federal JNC formed for Florida. "U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., has announced the formation of a new statewide federal judicial nominating commission to provide the White House with recommendations for nominees to the federal courts and top law enforcement posts in Florida. According to Martinez’s office, the 56-member commission was named in cooperation with Bill Nelson, his Democrat counterpart, and other members of the Florida congressional delegation. That could signal a return to the bipartisan federal judicial nominating process that was in place throughout most of the 1990s when Republican Sen. Connie Mack and Democratic Sen. Bob Graham collaborated on federal appointments. In the last few years, the federal JNC was appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush and other leading Republican elected officials, including U.S. Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr."

"The members from the Southern District include chair Justin Sayfie, Roberto Martinez, Barry Silverman, Tom Tew, Mark Schnapp, Luis Perez, Manny Kadre, Gonzalo R. Dorta, Robert Dunlap, Peter S. Sachs, Scott A. Srebnick, Charles Garcia, Dexter Lehtinen, Beverly A. Brame, Jillian Inmon, state Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, Thomas Panza, Steven E. Chaykin, Joseph Reiter, and Michael Hanzman. Their first task will be to help select a successor to former Miami U.S. Attorney Marcos D. Jimenez."

News and notes

1. More FEMA related news here. Yesterday Judge Altonaga sentenced a woman (represented by Miguel Caridad) to five years of probation for fraudulently collecting nearly $10,000 in federal disaster funds.

2. The Sun-Sentinel reports: "U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks in Miami sentenced Ricardo Contreras, 33, to serve 18 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and Rogino Sánchez, 24, to 15 months in prison and two years of supervised release for illegally transporting people into the United States," almost two months after a young woman they snuck into the country hanged herself in Boynton Beach.

3. Fred Grimm writes about the Abramoff case here. He explains how the federal case is being used in "as a vise to squeeze" out some information about the deal and about the death of Gus Boulis.

News and notes

Lots going on:

1. We have an anthrax arrest.

2. We have a huge fraud case, which was written up in the New York Times. More good press for the Lewis Tein firm, which was appointed as the receiver. Guy Lewis is quoted: "These guys were slick. They would have given Barnum & Bailey a run for their money."*

3. And we have possible cooperation from Jack Abramoff in a murder investigation.

*P.T. Barnum and James Bailey (along with the Ringling Bros.) started the Greatest Show on Earth, which was also a great movie (it won movie of the year in 1952).

Update on the Polls

The Southern District of Florida blog has had two polls -- one for the next Supreme Court nominee from Florida (the President didn't listen to our push for a Floridian) and one for the biggest case in this District. There have been 237 votes for next Floridian Justice. 25% have voted for Stanley Marcus. Adalberto Jordan, 21%; Federico Moreno 15%; and Cecilia Altonaga 14%. I'll keep the poll up while we still have Supreme Court mania... The other poll hasn't received as many votes, but the current leader is Bush v. Gore with 30%, USA v. Falcon/Magulta 16%, and the case not filed Iran-Contra 15%. Perhaps two recent in-the-news cases, USA v. Abramoff and the Cuban Spy case, should have been on the list...

I'm also working on putting together links for important District websites that I will list on the blog. Please email me with any thoughts for links that should be included. I'll try to get that up on the site shortly. Thanks to those of you who have emailed me with suggestions for the blog and with tips on cases.

--David Markus

Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and the Southern District

"Lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a key figure in investigations involving House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, was indicted Thursday by a federal grand jury on fraud charges arising from a 2000 deal to buy casino boats. The indictment, returned by a grand jury in Fort Lauderdale, charges that Abramoff and an associate, 36-year-old New York businessman Adam Kidan, used a fake wire transfer to defraud two lenders out of some $60 million to finance the deal for SunCruz Casinos." The House Ethics Committee is reviewing allegations that Abramoff paid some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses. Abramoff is represented by Neal Sonnett. Kidan is represented by Martin Jaffe. Read more at CNN or the Miami Herald or the Sun-Sentinel.

More Cuban Spy news and the Grinch

The Cuban spy case continues to get lots of coverage. The Sun-Sentinel explains why Miami-Cubans are angry; The Miami Herald has an op-ed defending the 11th Circuit's decision, an article about the future of the case, and an article describing how one groups is asking for their release. The Herald opinion:

At first glance, a federal appellate court's decision requiring a new trial for five Cubans accused of spying appears to be a harsh and unwarranted censure of Miami and the prevailing anti-Castro sentiment in this community. The court remanded the case for a new trial -- elsewhere -- because ''pervasive community prejudice'' precluded the probability of a fair trial in Miami for the defendants.
Principle of fairness
No community would find this a welcome message. However, a close reading of the court's 93-page decision suggests that this is not so much a slap at the community as reaffirmation of the principle that fairness is the paramount ingredient of the American system of justice. To understand this decision, it's important to point out what the court did not say, as well as what it said:

• It did not say that the jury was biased. In fact, the court cited an applicable ruling to the effect that the law does not require proof ''that local prejudice actually entered the jury box.'' Where community sentiment is strong (Who can deny that here?) and other factors such as pre-trial publicity come into play, a change of venue is necessary in the interest of fairness, the court said.

• It did not suggest that the defendants should have been acquitted on the basis of the evidence. Indeed, in reviewing the evidence matter-of-factly, the court referred to the defendants as ''agents'' and ''Wasp Network members.'' However, it noted that guilt or innocence based on evidence is not a determining factor when an appellate court reviews whether a change of venue was needed in order to ensure a fair trial.

• No single factor led the court to decide that only a change of venue could suit the interests of justice. Rather, it cited pre-trial publicity; a variety of other Cuba-related news stories around the same time, most prominently the Elián González controversy, that incited community passions; and ''improper prosecutorial references,'' including a statement that the ''jurors would be abandoning their community'' -- in the court's words -- if they did not convict.
Community passions
All of this, in the court's decision, amounted to a ''perfect storm'' of inflammatory conditions mandating a change of venue. It also noted that, in another legal action around that time, the government itself argued for a change of venue out of Miami on the theory that community passions were not ideal for rendering an impartial verdict in a case involving Cuba.
We do not endorse the notion that an impartial jury cannot be found in Miami to judge a case with Cuban connections. Neither did the appellate court. The court simply found that the interests of fairness would best have been served at the time by moving the spy trial elsewhere before the trial began. In the interest of fairness, we agree.

In other news, seven years the Grinch received. Teach him, it will. I'm not sure if that's Yoda or Seuss speak... sorry.

More on the Cuban Five

Howard Bashman does his typical wonderful job covering all the press about this case:
The Miami Herald contains this article today. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that "Court discards convictions of 5 Cubans accused of spying." The Chicago Tribune reports that "U.S. dealt setback on spies; Appellate court rules 5 Cuban agents were unfairly tried in Miami." In The New York Sun, Josh Gerstein reports that "Court Orders New Trial For 'Cuban Five.'"
And BBC News reports that "Havana hails US Cuban spy retrial; The Cuban government has welcomed a US appeal court decision to retry five Cubans convicted of spying."

Now that I've read the opinion a couple of interesting points:

1. Professor Gary Moran (from Florida International University's psychology department) did a venue survey pre-trial. He concluded that it would be impossible to receive a fair trial in Miami. The district court did not credit the survey, but the 11th Circuit quotes from it at length. I've used Gary Moran as a jury consultant and he (and his brother Bill) do great work.

2. The 11th Circuit relies not just on the publicity surrounding this case (of which there was a ton), but also relies on the Elian case, the government's admission in a civil case that there was community prejudice on this issue, witnsses during trial who baited the defense lawyers (even asking them if they were doing Fidel's bidding), and the government's comments throughout the trial (especially during rebuttal closing) mixing references to the Holocaust and Pearl Harbor and complaining to the jury that these "spies sent to destroy" this community had a legal defense "paid for by American taxpayers. "

3. A couple people have mentioned to me that this is the first reported decision of a federal criminal conviction reversed based on the denial of a motion for change of venue.

4. The venue motions were prepared by Joaquin Mendez (who, along with Richard Klugh, argued the issue on appeal) and Bill Norris, which relied on the survey by Moran.

5. Many have criticized the 11th Circuit and its opinion as being "liberal" or supporting "communism." It's an interesting criticism of a court that many would call the most conservative appellate court in the country. It's a recent and troubling trend of criticizing judges and courts when there is disagreement with a decision.