New Abramoff Prosecutor...

... is Andrew Lourie, a career AUSA here in Miami. Lourie will take over the public integrity section of the Department of Justice for Noel L. Hillman who has been nominated for a federal judgeship.

A couple questions:

1. What's the story on Lourie?

2. Why isn't the local media covering the Abramoff story more closely? Is it me or does it seem like no one down here really cares about this stuff? Abramoff is front page news around the country...

Ambulance Chasers?

And people say criminal lawyers are sleazy... Check out this story by Julie Kay and Jessica Walker about law firms -- posing as grief counselors -- chasing airplane crash victims, even as they were preparing to go to funerals. The article begins:
Representatives of a Chicago law firm posed as American Red Cross grief counselors to gain access to relatives of the victims of a Chalk’s Ocean Airways crash in Miami, according to complaints filed with the Florida and Illinois bars.As a result of the complaints, The Florida Bar is also investigating a West Palm Beach-based law firm for possible violations of Bar rules in its solicitation of the Bahamian relatives of passengers who were killed in the Chalk’s seaplane crash.The alleged misconduct also could violate a federal law intended to protect the families of plane crash victims from being approached by lawyers immediately after the death of their relatives.The Bar complaints were filed on Jan. 3 by Miami lawyer John Ruiz, who represents relatives of one of the crash victims. He contends that lawyers for the Rose Law Firm of West Palm Beach and the Chicago-based Nolan Law Group used improper client solicitation tactics. According to the complaint, lawyers from the firms posed as psychiatrists and Red Cross volunteers, and knocked on the doors of the grieving families in Bimini as early as the day of the crash.

The fake botox cases...

... have resulted in some extremely tough sentences.

The role of judge

So if a prosecutor and a defense attorney agree that a particular case merits a particular sentence, should a judge be permitted to impose a harsher sentence. That's the question being argued in a case in which the government and defense agreed to a sentencing range of 57-71 months for a defendant who pleaded guilty to alien smuggling (which resulted in the tragic death of a 7 year old boy during the chase on the high seas). Judge Moore has indicated that the agreed upon sentencing range (which is based on an enhancement for death) is not sufficient and has asked for briefs from the parties as to why he should not go higher.

The question is an interesting one. If, as Chief Justice Roberts has suggested, judges are merely umpires who are supposed to call balls and strikes, then why should the umpire call what the parties have deemed a strike as a ball. In other words, it is the government (who represents the people) and defense (who represents the defendant) who know the case the best and who have fought -- under our adversary system -- to reach a result that both sides could live with. Why shouldn't the judge enforce that agreement? Thoughts? Here's the AP story on it.

UPDATE -- The first comment lays out the case for the judge taking such action. Interestingly, according to Jay Weaver, AUSA Dana Washington explained to the judge that the sentence was reasonable and that the sentencing guidelines took into account the death. He cited to a previous case in which Judge King was reversed for departing upward to life. If the prosecutor, who represents the people, believes the sentence is enough, should the judge (umpire) take a different position?

(Disclosure -- I represented a co-defendant in that King case in which we also secured a reversal in the 11th Circuit on another issue. My client ended up with about 4 year sentence because the 11th Circuit concluded that the events on the boat were not foreseeable to my client)...

"Help wanted"

Julie Kay details in today's DBR -- U.S. Attorney has sign out: Help Wanted -- that the U.S. Attorney's office is hiring due to the large number of vacanies. Those mentioned in the article as recently leaving: Marvelle McIntyre-Hall (retiring) , Gerald Greenberg (Stearns Weaver) , Aimee Jimenez (USAO in Washington), Lilly Ann Sanchez (Fowler White), Carlos Castillo (Seidman Prewitt), Jonathan Lopez (Justice Dept DC), and Dan Fridman (Justice Dept DC). The article also says that "The Justice Department has always used the Miami office of the U.S. Attorney's office as something of a farm team." Those working in DC with ties to Miami: Barry Sabin, Michael Mulaney, Paul Pelletier, Drew Osterbaan, Mary Butler, Ed Nucci, and now Fridman and Lopez.

More Jack Abramoff

If you haven't had enought Jack Abramoff news, here's a Miami Herald article by Jay Weaver summarizing what has occurred in the case. Weaver explains: "prosecutors Lawrence LaVecchio and Paul Schwartz and Jeff Sloman, chief of the U.S. attorney's criminal division in Miami, flew to Washington to meet with senior Justice Department lawyers. With them was veteran FBI agent Susan Sprengel" to explain how deep the case ran. Everyone is still waiting for all the indictments. Another Miami blogger says don't hold your breath.

FIU prof/wife plead NG and Herald writer pleads guilty

Could the FIU prof and his wife accused of being Cuban spies be headed to trial? Sounds like it might be heading that way. Not because of the not guilty pleas -- that happens in every case -- but because the lawyers' comments seem to suggest a fight is ahead. Read here and here.

In other news, Herald writer Ana Veciana-Suarez pleaded guilty to a contempt of court charge for not disclosing her father's criminal history during jury selection in a 2003 civil trial .

2 votes for dumping peremptory challenges

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided unanimously a habeas case, Rice v. Collins, which in the scheme of High Court rulings didn't shake the legal establishment. What's extremely interesting about this case is the concurrence by Justice Breyer re-affirming his position that we should do away with peremptory challenges altogether. I wrote an op-ed for the Miami Herald over the summer supporting this position. At the time, Breyer was alone on the Court in his belief that the only way to do away with discrimination in jury selection was to eliminate the peremptory challenge. He picked up a vote yesterday with Justice Souter who joined in the opinion. It looks like this idea is starting to pick up some momentum. The last time this topic was brought up on the blog, it brought about a lot of discussion. Any new thoughts?