Mandatory Minimums Gone Forever - Just Kidding

Interesting piece in the Congressional Quarterly Today about James "mandatory minimum" Sensenbrenner, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Apparently, Mr. Sensenbrenner and others on this important committee believe that mandatory minimum sentences are unduly harsh and unfair. Well, not really. Nevertheless, Mr. Sensenbrenner has "agreed to strip many of the mandatory minimum sentences aimed at curbing street gangs and violence against judges from legislation that the House is likely to consider this week." The blog Sentencing Law and Policy discusses the recent article and has an interesting series entitled "Dead Booker Walking." Check it out.

Secret Dockets

It looks like the controversy of secret dockets is becoming part of the federal judicial landscape. Jurist.law.pitt.edu has an interesting article on the issue and explains that there has been a “sharp increase” in secret proceedings in U.S. federal courts. More than five thousand criminal defendants have had their case records sealed, that is more than five times the number from 2003. Hidden federal dockets, where the existence of the case is not disclosed, is also on the rise. Interestingly, as many readers already know, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that secret dockets were unconstitutional in United States v. Ochoa. Are secret dockets the trend of the future?

Blog press

Florida Trend has an article about Florida legal blogs by Cynthia Barnett and mentions SDFLA.

(I'm home for the weekend, and then back to Savannah for trial on Monday. We've zoomed through 50 witnesses. Another 100 to go...)

Judicial Retirement

Magistrate Judge Hugh J. Morgan announced his retirement today. Judge Morgan has served six terms and has been on the bench for almost 25 years. He was the only magistrate to sit in the Florida Keys thus raising questions about whether he will be replaced or the part-time mag position in Key West will be gone forever. Anyone with inside information on what will likely happen feel free to comment.

A Bridge to Freedom?

Judge Moreno issued a landmark decision finding that 15 repatriated Cubans were removed to Cuba illegally insofar as the Coast Guard's decision to remove the refugees "was not a reasonable interpretation of present executive policy." This case highlights the debate about the "wet-foot, dry-foot policy" that allows Cubans to remain in the United States if they reach land. Cuban refugees had reached the old, unused Seven Mile Bridge but the Coast Guard determined that the bridge had been abandoned and that the Cuban refugees had not reached dry land in the United States. Judge Moreno disagreed.

The question of the day is whether Fidel Castro will allow these Cubans to return to the United States...

Read more from today's Miami Herald

It's official...

... the FDC-Miami officials have lost their marbles.

Check out the DBR article today (another Julie Kay special) about the new dress code at the prison -- FOR LAWYERS. Here's the intro:

Going to visit a client in the Federal Detention Center in Miami? Better make sure you’re wearing a conservative suit, and whatever you do, don’t wear gray slacks and a blue blazer. In recent weeks, the FDC has begun cracking down on villainous lawyers who wear nonmatching pants and blazers, gray pants and blue blazers and even khaki pants. And women who wear skirts above the knee or with slits are reportedly being turned away, too. Miami lawyer Bruce Alter said in a phone message he was turned away from the FDC last week for wearing khaki pants, as was Darryl Wilcox, an assistant federal public defender, who was wearing gray pants, a white shirt, red tie and blue blazer. “I was wearing the standard out-of-court outfit,” Wilcox said. “They told me it was too similar to what the Bureau of Prisons guards wear.” While Wilcox was not allowed to enter the jail, the public defender-hired translator was waiting inside with Wilcox’s client, who speaks only Spanish. Wilcox ended up returning to his Fort Lauderdale office without being able to see his client. “I was annoyed,” Wilcox said. “But I guess security is security.”

Sleepless in Savannah

So I'm still here in Savannah trying this case. One week down, who knows how many to go. In the first four days of trial, we've picked a jury, done 11 opening statements, and have examined 28 witnesses. No joke...

I miss the Southern District of Florida.

In actual SDFLA news, check out this Sun-Sentinel article about FDC getting slammed again, this time by Judge Cooke. Frankly, the BOP deserves it.

During this period of slow blogging, I'm counting on you all (I guess I should say y'all) to keep the blog buzzing in the comment section about all the goings-on in the district.

U.S. Probation - Powerful or Powerless

The authority of the United States Probation Office was addressed last week by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In U.S. v. Nash, No. 05-11440 (Feb. 13, 2006), the Court agreed with the defendant that the district court erred in delegating to a probation officer the judicial task of determining whether he should participate in a mental health program, but otherwise affirmed the sentence. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court, not U.S Probation, must decide whether a defendant should participate in mental health counseling.

On the other hand, the Court made clear that U.S. Probation still has the discretion to discuss a defendant’s prior criminal record, or personal history or characteristic with third parties. The Court also upheld the condition of supervised release which delegated to a local U.S. Probation Officer the task of requiring the defendant to secure prior approval from his probation officer before opening any checking, credit, or debit account (Nash was convicted of fraud).

Does United States Probation have too much authority or too little? What about travel restrictions placed on defendants while on Supervised Release? Fair on unjust? Throw your jabs and lets hear some comments.