Hitting the ground running

Our new Chief Judge, Federico Moreno, has issued a bunch of administrative orders in his first week on the job. Julie Kay covers all the activity, including "revamp[ing] the way naturalization ceremonies and emergency motions will be handled by assigning judges on a rotating basis to oversee them." The Chief also assigned the judges to different committees. Here's a list of the chairs from the article:

He assigned Judge Joan Lenard to chair the committee on the clerk’s office; Judge Donald Graham to chair the committee on the budget; Judge Jordan to chair the committee on court reporters and interpreters; Judge Huck to chair the committee on magistrate judges; Judge Cooke to chair the committee on probation; Judge Donald Middlebrooks to chair the committee on rules; Judge Martinez to chair the committee on security; and Judge Altonaga to chair the committee on automation. He also appointed Graham as liaison to the Fort Pierce courthouse project; Judge William Dimitrouleas as liaison to the Fort Lauderdale courthouse project; Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley as liaison to the West Palm Beach courthouse project; Graham as liaison to the Criminal Justice Act panel; Judge K. Michael Moore as liaison to the General Services Administration; Judge Alan S. Gold as liaison to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court; and Judge Jordan as liaison to the Volunteer Lawyers Project.

Here are the orders, courtesy of the DBR.

Fun Padilla coverage in the NYTimes

Sunday's New York Times covers some of the craziness occurring in the Jose Padilla trial. Here we go with some highlights:

Mr. Padilla looks relaxed most days, only seldom betraying tension when his jaw muscles twitch or his shoulders hunch in his business suit. He laughs softly when his lawyers joke, and he smiles at his mother when she comes to court on Fridays. He seems to follow the tortuous proceedings closely, but what he is thinking is anyone’s guess.

What kind of joke could you make to a guy who was held without charges or any real human contact for three years? And isn't it always "anyone's guess" as to what a defendant is thinking?

Where Mr. Padilla eats lunch is one mystery of the trial, . . .

That's a mystery of the trial? Well, here you go -- he's eating in the holding cells in the courthouse. And he usually gets a horrible bologna and cheese sandwich.

. . . but a far larger question looms: What must the jurors be thinking? . . . (One can imagine the jurors in deliberations, arguing over whether “eating cheese” means waging jihad or enjoying a chunk of Gruyère.)

Ah, we're back to wondering what others are thinking... I'm willing to bet a lot of money that no juror utters the word Gruyere. Any takers?

Since the trial began on May 14, their own lives have sometimes proved more dramatic than the case. One juror’s sister died of cancer last week; she wept during a break the next day, prompting Judge Marcia Cooke to dismiss court early. Another was injured trying to stop a car thief; he was excused.

Judge Cooke is very considerate. The jurors must absolutely love her. I know the lawyers do.

Several times now, the five women and seven men have shown up in color-coordinated outfits. One day, the men dressed in blue and the women in pink. On July 3, the first row wore red, the second white and the third blue, leading bloggers to wonder whether they were worrisomely frivolous or unified — or so patriotic as to condemn all accused terrorists.

I've been picking on the reporter a bit, but now I sorta like her. She mentions our scoop on the jurors wearing colors to court. Why no shout out!! Come on!!

The most interesting things almost always happen when the jurors are not around. That is when the lawyers complain to Judge Cooke, often bitterly, about each other’s conduct and plans. Once in a while they even fix each other with death stares, as if summoning a voodoo curse.

Now this is good stuff. Maybe I should start a new poll -- who has the best death stare in the trial? Please discuss!

Tensions erupt so often that some days it seems the jurors are filing out to their break room every few minutes. The lawyers have fought over whether the government could use the term “violent jihad” (no), whether it could show jurors a CNN interview with Osama bin Laden (yes) and whether the cross-examination of a witness could last longer than direct questioning.

They complain of insufficient warning about exhibits and accuse each other of prejudicing the jury.
“Your honor, this is insanity,” John Shipley, an assistant attorney general, said last week, complaining about a late-night e-mail message he received from one of Mr. Hassoun’s lawyers.

Some more interesting stuff, but time to pick on the reporter a little again. "Assistant Attorney General"? Nope. Try again. Shipley is an Assistant United States Attorney. But I do like the quote. STOP THE INSANITY!

Judge Cooke usually listens patiently [when the lawyers bicker out of the presence of the jury] while the jurors do who-knows-what — coordinate their outfits, perhaps — in the break room. But last week she blew up at Jeanne Baker, a lawyer for Mr. Hassoun, calling her “disrespectful” after Ms. Baker talked over a government objection.
“Tell the jurors to take 10 minutes,” Judge Cooke said, adding, “I’m taking 10 minutes.”
She adjourned court early that day. There are still weeks to go.

Oh boy. Doesn't sound good for Baker. To get Judge Cooke angry, you really have to mess something up.... Even though I picked at the article, I enjoyed it. It's interesting to cover a trial with good lawyering on both sides...

Big shout out to the blog

NBC's Nick Bogert in his weekly "Bogert's Brief" discusses Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. He read this post about my initial reaction to the decision to commute the sentence and asked if we could do an interview. The blog gets a prominent mention and the website address is even displayed. Pretty cool. Here's the video.

It's always interesting doing these interviews and seeing what portions they pick to put on the air. (There's an awful lot of me typing and sitting at the computer, which is very strange when they are filming. I kept typing -- this is really weird, this is really weird -- until they told me to stop.)

"Feds: Miami terror cell practiced with paintball"

That's the headline in this AP article about the Miami 7 from Liberty City who are charged with conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower. My favorite part of the article:

Some were clearly bewildered by what had happened to them. One of those arrested in June 2006 even asked the FBI agents interrogating him whether he could have some of the marijuana he had been carrying, according to the statements filed recently in federal court.

That defendant, 23-year-old Naudimar Herrera, asked for ''a rub of my green'' after the agents showed him a videotape of the group swearing loyalty to al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, at the direction of an FBI informant the men knew as Mohammed.

''Herrera said that he needed the substance to calm his nerves. . . . Herrera was provided with a bottle of water to drink and was allowed to take a restroom break,'' an FBI summary said.

Classic.

More thoughts on the Padilla jury

As detailed below, a bunch of different blogs are commenting on the Padilla jury. And we have had some interesting comments too. A person who claims to have been on the Libby jury has written in:


J said...
On the Libby jury, we all wore red on Valentine's Day. This jury is wearing red white and blue for the Fourth of July. It wasn't a sign of anything then and it should not be read as one now. It's simply a way to relieve the tension and boredom of being in the courtroom for all those hours. It's hard to keep up, believe me, when it's summer and you're thinking about what to put on the grill rather than what a poor case the government is putting on.
1:04 PM


Interesting. I'm swamped right now so I can't comment further, but I will try to get to it this weekend.

Happy birthday SDFLA blog

It's been two great years doing this blog. We started Fourth of July weekend two years ago, and since then readership has shot up (last year we were averaging about 175 hits a day, now we are up to well over 300 per day), a bunch of other local blogs have started to cover the courts, and we continue to have fun doing it.

Here is our first post, arguing that the President should appoint a Floridian to the Supreme Court (apparently, he didn't listen!).

And here is our one year anniversary post.

Our second year anniversary post, about the jurors dressing up in the Padilla trial, has gotten a bunch of attention. Thanks to the Volokh Conspiracy, the Wall Street Journal legal blog, Rumpole, Discourse, The National Review, TalkLeft, and a bunch of others for linking to that post. Our numbers are way up because of it...

Dress up day...

So, I thought I was being extremely festive today... not only did I dress up my four year old daughter in red, white, and blue for camp, I even wore a red tie to work. That's nothing though.

In the Jose Padilla trial, jurors showed up today all dressed up. Row one in red. Row two in white. And row three in blue. I'm not kidding.

And this isn't the first time the jury has dressed up. A week back, all of the jurors (save one) wore black.

So what do you make of this. On the one hand, the jury might just be having some fun. This is a long trial and it's not a one hour Law and Order show. It's boring.

Perhaps the jury is unified, which might be a poor sign for the defense. If everyone is thinking the same way at such an early stage, defense lawyers get nervous. Or the prosecution might be concerned because this is obviously a happy jury. Happy juries during a terrorism trial might not be good.

The trial is in recess until next Monday so the lawyers will have plenty of time to make themselves crazy over what all this means.

Any thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July!

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson says that in addition to the black and the red, white, and blue, last Friday all the women wore pink and the men blue. What is going on? Anderson also details how the government expert Rohan Gunaratna was scolded by Judge Cooke today for appearing on CNN yesterday. Dan Christensen and Jay Weaver explain here that the expert is under attack by the defense.

Thoughts on Scooter

President Bush's commutation of Scooter isn't that surprising. But his comments about why he commuted the sentence are:

[C]ritics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury....

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, two years of probation and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison....

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

I agree with the President on these points. Defendants shouldn't be punished for conduct which they have not agreed to or which hasn't been proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. First time non-violent offenders in many cases should not receive jail time. There are alternatives to incarceration that work in many many cases and will work for Scooter Libby. We don't have to worry that he will be reoffending.

The problem with the President's reasoning is that the Sentencing Guidelines prescribe this result and his administration continues to push these guidelines in every case, no matter the individual circumstances. This, of course, is wrong -- not just in Scooter's case, but in a great deal of cases. I hope sentencing judges and prosecutors look at the President's comments and see that the Guidelines need not be applied mechanistically in every case.