Up in smoke...

A helpful reader points out that the Mexico drug laws don't appear to be going forward:

MEXICO
Fox backtracks, sends drug bill back
President Vicente Fox said he would ask Mexico's Congress to amend a drug decriminalization bill. The decision was praised by the White House, which had voiced serious concerns.
MEXICO CITY - (AP) -- U.S. officials welcomed Mexican President Vicente Fox's decision not to sign a drug decriminalization bill that some had warned could result in ''drug tourism'' in this country and increased availability of narcotics in American border communities.
Fox said Wednesday he was sending the bill back to Congress for changes, just one day after his office had said he would sign into law the measure, which would have dropped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs.
The president will ask for corrections ``to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense.''
The White House applauded Fox's decision. Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said U.S. officials had expressed concerns about decriminalizing drugs. ''We welcome the steps that are being taken by President Fox,'' McClellan said Thursday.
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had said he was ''appalled'' by the bill because it could increase drug availability north of the border, also said he was pleased by Fox's decision.
''I'm glad that he's listened to the many voices opposing the bill and made changes that will make good enforcement and not legalize drugs,'' Sanders said. ``We have been a partner with Mexico in fighting against illegal drugs, and this will only help in the long-term in that relationship.''
San Diego is a short drive from the border town of Tijuana, Mexico.
Presidential spokesman Rubén Aguilar said on Thursday that Fox had ''in no way'' yielded to U.S. pressure, but acknowledged that Mexico ``took into account the observations of U.S. authorities.''
Current Mexican law allows judges to drop charges if suspects can prove they are addicts and the quantity they were caught with is small enough to be considered ''for personal use,'' or if they are first-time offenders.
The new bill would have allowed ''consumers'' as well as addicts to have drugs, and delineated specific allowable quantities, which do not appear in the current law.
Under the law, consumers could have legally possessed up to 25 milligrams of heroin, 5 grams of marijuana (about one-fifth of an ounce, or about four joints), or 0.5 grams of cocaine -- the equivalent of about four ''lines,'' or half the standard street-sale quantity.

Criminalizing conduct overseas

Orin Kerr has this post about the legalization of drugs in Mexico:

Mexico to Legalize Possession of Small Amounts of Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana and Other Drugs
by Orin Kerr

According to the Associated Press, President Vincente Fox of Mexico is set to sign a bill that will legalize the possession of ‘personal use’ amounts of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and unnamed “other drugs.”
Millions of Americans live near the U.S-Mexico border. In light of that, the Mexico law raises an interesting question: Is it legal for an American citizen to travel to a foreign country where drugs are legal, to take the drugs in that country, and then to return to the United States? I don’t know, but I’m sure some readers do (purely out of academic interest, of course).

This issue is being litigated in this District in another forum -- sex with minors overseas. In some countries, the age of consent is 16 (in some it's less than that). And in many of these countries, prostitution is legal. Congress, however, has criminalized the act of intending to go overseas to engage in prostitution with a minor (as defined by the U.S.). The Federal Defender's Office has an appeal pending questioning whether Congress has the power to criminalize such an act (thought) where if the person carried out the act, he would be violating no law in the other country. Thoughts?

Motion for bond granted...

Here is the order on the motion discussed in the post below:

Docket Text: ORAL ORDER granting [41] Motion for bond; Bond set for Frank Jesus Onetti; Released on Own Recognizance with electronic monitoring and curfew conditions as to Frank Jesus Onetti. Entered by Judge John Antoon II on 5/1/2006. (DJD, )

The judge set a final hearing on the 2255 petition for September.

Congratulations to Marc Seitles on this victory. More importantly, good luck to Brenertt Onetti, the seven year old boy, who will have his father beside him when he has his surgery.

Sweeping too far?

Immigration sweeps and arrests have been in the news a lot the past few days. (Infrequent) Co-blogger Marc Seitles has decided to represent pro-bono a family who has been caught up in all of this. It is a very sad story about a seven year old boy who has leukemia and is scheduled for bone marrow surgery.

His father was picked up in the sweeps. Turns out that the dad previously pled guilty to having a false social security number (so he could work as a janitor). He did not show up to sentencing because his son was so sick, and he was sentenced in absentia to 6 months. Three years later he gets picked up, right before the boy is scheduled for surgery. On Friday, Seitles filed an emergency habeas motion trying to get the father a resentencing and a bond so that he can be with his son for the surgery. It's being heard today. Here's the Channel 4 story. (The Herald article incorrectly suggests that this is in front of immigration officials today; it's not -- it's back before the district judge).

Seitles is very active in the immigration-turned-criminal arena. On Friday, the DBR (J. Kay) ran an article on the new identity theft statute that the U.S. Attorney's office is using in false document cases, which carries a two year minimum mandatory sentence. Seitles was extensively quoted in the article about a different client of his subjected to this new statute...

I'll update the blog later today on the outcome of the hearing. It's scheduled at 1:30...

Classic.

Jean-Marc Brun is scheduled to be sentenced in front of Judge Cooke. His lawyer, Milton Hirsch, filed a motion with Judge Marcia Cooke "to permit witness to wear hat in court." You may have seen Joan Fleischman's article covering this important litigation. Here's a piece from the article: "[Character witness] Eber always wears a cowboy hat -- his trademark. But hats are generally a no-no in court. 'We seek . . . an order granting Mr. Eber leave to wear his hat . . . in the courtroom during sentencing proceedings,' Hirsch's motion says. Eber, whose flagship salon is on fancy-schmancy Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, has styled the tresses of Cher, Elizabeth Taylor and Farrah Fawcett. From Hirsch's motion: 'His hat is a recognized and recognizable feature of his own style and fashion. . . . There is nothing more American than the notion that one man's nonsense is another man's cachet. Can we imagine Charlie Chaplin's lovable tramp without his bowler? Sherlock Holmes without his deerstalker? Humphrey Bogart as Richard Blaine in Casablanca without his fedora?' Prosecutor Andrea Hoffman 'has no objection' to a hatted José, Hirsch says."

Judge Cooke issued an Order on that motion yesterday. Here's the text of the order:

THIS MATTER is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion to Permit Witness to Wear Hat in Court, filed April 25, 2006.
The Court understands and recognizes the importance Mr. Eber places upon wearing his hat. It is well-known that part of Mr. Eber’s "image" is his trademark cowboy hat. As there are no cameras allowed in court, the possible negative effect of him appearing in the courtroom hatless cannot be gauged.
The wearing of hats is a tradition of a by-gone era, and as such, it is important that those choosing to reenact that era be aware of the proper rules of conduct that should be demonstrated by the wearer.
Generally, there are two degrees of politeness demonstrated by a gentleman wearing a hat: 1) lifting or tipping it, which you generally do for strangers, and 2) taking it off, which is generally done for friends, or as sign of patriotism or reverence.
Both are done as a sign of respect toward others are an expression of one’s own dignity. As rule, hats are removed during the playing of the National Anthem, while the American Flag is passing, at funeral or in the presence of passing funeral procession, and indoors–especially in a church, courtroom or restaurant. If in doubt, a true gentleman will remove his hat indoors as soon as in practical. Leaving one’s hat on when it is considered "proper" to remove it is generally considered aq sign of contempt and/or disrespect.
Would Charlie Chaplin, Sherlock Holmes or Humphrey Bogart as Richard Blaine choose to wear their headgear, when by so doing, they are making a statement that fashion, rather than commonly-accepted practices showing respect, dictate their behavior?
The Court feels this to be a matter of respect, and as such, respects Mr. Ever’s sentiments with regard to his hat. In light of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows:
Mr. Eber may choose to remove his hat as a sign of respect, in accordance with the commonly-accepted rules of etiquette, or he may choose to testify with his hat on. Perhaps the author his carefully researched motion, Milton Hirsch, a gentleman and Office of the Court himself, might assist in his decision.

CLASSIC! (UPDATE -- The Herald has now picked up the Order).

In other fun judicial decisions, apparently the judge handling the lawsuit over the DaVinci Code has inserted his own code into the text of the order. Here is some coverage. And here is the decision. UDPATED -- here is the solution. CNN has a story explaining the code and solution here and hints about the code here.

Great stuff, no?

The Constitutional Criminal Procedure Champion is...

... Justice Scalia.

I'm not kidding. He's penned Blakely (rendering unconstitutional the Federal Sentencing Guidelines) and Crawford (breathing life back into the Confrontation Clause). And after the oral argument in United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, I'd bet Scalia is going to write another important criminal procedure decision, again supporting the criminal defendant -- this time defending one's Sixth Amendment right to have the lawyer of his choice.

The oral argument looked like a lot of fun, going so far as to invoke every criminal lawyer's favorite film, My Cousin Vinny.

Scalia had this to say at oral argument: "I don't want a 'competent' lawyer. I want a lawyer to get me off. I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense. I want to win."

Alito countered: "Let's say the defendant wanted to be represented by a relative who specialized in real estate law. If that lawyer was disqualified and the defendant was eventually represented by an experienced criminal defense lawyer with a national reputation, "why wouldn't that be harmless error?"

That would still be "unquestionably a Sixth Amendment violation," Jeff Fisher (yes, that Jeff Fisher of Blakely and Crawford fame), the defendant's lawyer, replied.

Here's an article about the case.

Meth and the Florida Bar

The website has been down all day. Sorry...

I tried to make up for it with a catchy (even if a little misleading) title.

Meth labs have never been big down in South Florida. But apparently this has changed, according to this Herald article.

In unrelated news, the litigation between Louis Robles' former clients and the Florida Bar has been transferred to District Judge William B Hunt, Jr., a senior judge in Atlanta. The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida and initially was assigned to Judge Huck, who recused. Chief Judge Zloch then asked the 11th Circuit to assign a judge outside of Florida to handle the case. The story was in the DBR this morning (password required).

Double Agent...

The Miami Herald's Jay Weaver and Oscar Corral have this interesting story on the confidential informant in the weapons case involving Santiago Alvarez and Osvaldo Mitat. Here's the intro:

A federal informant playing a critical role in a South Florida weapons case against the wealthy Miami benefactor for Cuban exile militant Luis Posada Carriles also was sharing details about the exiles with a Cuban government official known as ''Daniel'' as far back as 2001, prosecutors have revealed.

Prosecutors also disclosed for the first time that the FBI informant, Gilberto Abascal, traveled by boat with Posada's benefactor and other friends last year to pick up the CIA-trained Posada in Mexico and bring him back to the United States illegally.

Details of Abascal's past contacts with a Cuban official and Posada's entry into the United States surfaced Friday as attorneys for the weapons-case defendants, Santiago Alvarez and Osvaldo Mitat, sought to obtain more information from prosecutors that could help their clients' defense.

For months, prosecutors claimed to have no evidence that Abascal communicated with Cuban government officials. Yet the April 6 letter made public Friday acknowledges that Abascal met with ''Daniel'' and perhaps others at least six times -- an admission that could bolster claims that the defendants were set up by the Cuban government.

The explosive admission was made public just two weeks before the May 8 trial in Fort Lauderdale, a location opposed by the defendants because they maintain they cannot get a fair trial outside of Miami-Dade.