Count I dismissed in the Jose Padilla case

BREAKING NEWS:

Judge Marcia Cooke has dismissed Count I of the indictment against Jose Padilla because it is multiplicitous. In other words, Count I represents the same offense that is also charged in Counts II and III. An indictment is multiplicitous when it charges a single offense multiple times, in separate counts. There are 2 reasons that multiplicitous counts may be prejudicial to a defendant: 1) the defendant may be sentenced twice for only one crime; and 2) multiplicitous counts may improperly prejudice a jury be suggesting that a defendant has committed several crimes, not one. Judge Cooke explained that because "in Counts I, II, and III, the government alleged one and only one conspiracy, with one and only one purpose and object for each of the conspiracy counts," Count I is multiplicitous and must be dismissed. (emphasis in original).

The government, of course, is still free to proceed with its case on Counts II and III. I would guess, however, that the government is going to appeal -- and quickly. Count I -- conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim persons in a foreign county, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956(a)(1) -- is by far the most serious count, carrying a life maximum. Counts II and III carry far less serious maximum penalties (I believe each has a 10 year max on each, although I will check this). An appeal will delay indefinitely the current trial setting in January, so Mr. Padilla will have to spend more time in solitary confinement.

This was a very courageous order by Judge Cooke. The government for far too long has been charging the same crime many different ways for tactical reasons. The more counts in an indictment, the greater the chance a jury will find a defendant guilty of one of the counts. And under the sentencing guidelines, even if there is only a conviction of a single count, the judge can then consider all of the counts and allegations (even acquitted conduct) in calculating a guideline range. Perhaps this order, if affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, will begin pushing back against this tactic.

In addition to dismissing Count I, Judge Cooke also found that Count II was duplicitious. A charge is duplicitous if it alleges two or more separate and distinct crimes in a single count. The dangers posed by a duplicitous counts in an indictment are three-fold: 1) a jury may convict a defendant without unanimously agreeing on the same offense; 2) a defendant may be prejudiced in a subsequent double jeopardy defense; and 3) a court may have difficult determining the admissibility of evidence. Although the Court made this finding on Count II, it was not dismissed. Instead, the government has until Friday to decide which of the two crimes charged (either the general conspiracy statute under section 371 or the terrorism statute, section 2339) to pursue. Obviously, the government will elect the more serious terrorism section. This decision will also, I'm sure, be appealed.

Most people will announce surprise at these rulings for one of two reasons -- first that Judge Cooke is a Bush appointee or second that counts are almost never dismissed on these grounds. As I have explained before, Judge Cooke is as fair a judge as there is. Judges cannot comment on their opinions. They cannot defend their opinions in the press. I hope that the bar stands up for Judge Cooke and explains these technical aspects of the law to the press. As for the second ground, simply because it does not happen a lot doesn't mean that it shouldn't or that it wasn't correct in this case. It would have been very easy to deny the motion. Judge Cooke should be applauded for doing what she believes is just and right, and compelled by the law, in a very difficult case with lots of political and media pressures. Now we'll get a definitive answer from the 11th as to whether prosecutors will be able to charge one crime as many ways as they can come up with...

UPDATE -- first article on the board goes to Jay Weaver, here.

Here is the Order.

Here is the CNN article.

"5 charged with organizing Cuban migrant smuggling trips"

Read the Herald AP article here.

I'm out -- have a nice weekend.

Bankest Verdicts

After almost a half a year in trial and 4 weeks of deliberations, the Bankest jury returned guilty verdicts against all defendants, who were taken into custody after the verdicts were read. Now the question is whether the Orlanskys will be punished more harshly for exercising their right to trial. This particular bank fraud trial has been dubbed the biggest in Miami's history. Here's the intro to the Herald article:

Eduardo and Hector Orlansky, the top officers of E.S. Bankest, each face up
to a maximum of 30 years in prison and substantial restitution for conspiring to defraud Espirito Santo Bank of Florida of some $170 million. The Orlanskys and E.S. Bankest manager R. Peter Stanham were taken into federal custody following the verdict Wednesday. The government argued they were potential flight risks because of their ties to other countries. The Orlanskys are from Argentina. Ariadna Puerto, another E.S. Bankest officer, was given home detention. U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan set sentencing for Nov. 17. Eduardo Orlansky stared straight ahead and showed no emotion as the jury foreman read the verdict before a packed courtroom. Hector Orlansky shook his head as the guilty counts against his brother were recited. Puerto cried as the counts against her were read. Stanham also teared up as he said his goodbyes to family members before being taken into custody.

Snow White's dwarfs more famous than US judges: poll

Here's a great article that I came across (hat tip: ScotusBlog) about Americans' knowledge of the Supreme Court and government in general. Here are some tidbits:

• Three quarters of Americans can correctly identify two of Snow White's seven dwarfs while only a quarter can name two Supreme Court Justices, according to a poll on pop culture released on Monday.
• Twice as many people (23 percent) were able to identify the most recent winner of the television talent show "American Idol," Taylor Hicks, as were able to name the Supreme Court Justice confirmed in January 2006, Samuel Alito (11 percent).
• Respondents were far more familiar with the Three Stooges — Larry, Curly and Moe — than the three branches of the U.S. government — judicial, executive and legislative. Seventy-four percent identified the former, 42 percent the latter.

What do you think the results in Miami would be if we asked about local judges? I'm afraid to ask...

Janet Reno's speech at NACDL

The National Assocation of Criminal Defense Lawyers recently had its annual meeting in Miami Beach, Florida. Janet Reno spoke. Here is her speech, with an intro from Neal Sonnett.

NG NOTB

Not Guilty North of the Border. What a relief! I'm still convinced there is no better feeling than hearing those two words...

I'll be back in the office today trying to get the computer back in order, catching up on stuff, and then finally getting back to the blog.

Profiling Prosecutors and Public Defenders

This morning's Daily Business Review profiles prosecutors and PDs. AUSAs Ed Nucci, Caroline Heck Miller, and Richard Gregorie are discussed as well as AFPD Faith Mesnekoff. There is also a long story about why public servants join these offices and why many must leave.

Crash

So we didn't finish the North of the Border Trial today as I had hoped. Summations will be Monday, which means a stressful weekend. Even worse, my Microsoft Exchange Server crashed at the office today, and my tech guy tells me that I've probably lost all my data. I thought this stuff never disappears... So do I start from scratch, hire a data recovery team, or try to recreate what I can from different places? UGH!!!!!