The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Narseal Batiste: Day 5
Today was the fifth day on the stand for Narseal Batiste, the lead defendant in the Liberty City 7 case. He's still on direct. Curt Anderson has all the details and says that he is expected to testify the rest of the week! Is it me or is this way too long for anyone to be on the stand? I love the call for him to testify; it takes a lot of guts and is very high risk, high reward, but this seems to be too much. Thoughts?
UM law student in the blogosphere
We have posted about a UM law student in Playboy...
Now we have this UM law student, Jessica, as reported by AboveTheLaw.
Apparently, Mr. Lat can't get enough of South Florida...
If you want to see the video (I decided to take it down here), then go to AbovetheLaw.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Judicial Elections vs. Appointments
In theory, judicial elections seem like a great idea -- judges are accountable; it's democratic; we're not stuck with a bad judge for life...
But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.
The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?
Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.
Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.
Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.
As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.
What about elections from a small group of pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?
But in practice, here in South Florida, judicial elections in the state system are problematic.
The biggest problem (at least for the lawyers) is campaign season. Everyone is asking for money for this fundraiser or that fundraiser even though the elections are a year away and even though most candidates do not have any challenger. Is it me or is this election cycle the earliest and most intense yet?
Then the election itself is not based on any particular position of the candidate. Candidates can't campaign on their personal beliefs. And it's not based on who is better qualified. There is really no rhyme or reason as to who gets elected.
Plus, it's difficult to tell why certain candidates draw opposition and others don't. Those with the lowest bar ratings oftentimes don't draw opposition, while those with the highest do. Many argue that the choices as to where to run are based largely on race and gender.
Don't get me wrong -- the federal system has its flaws too. It's nearly impossible to get rid of a bad judge, and robeitis (the disease that many lawyers get when they become judges) is particularly acute in the federal system. But I'll take the federal system of choosing judges any day to elections.
As a side note, the concern about politicizing the process is a valid concern, but look at Charlie Crist. He has made superb appointments in the state system, and they have been party-blind appointments.
What about elections from a small group of pre-qualified candidates? Or the state appellate system where voters could remove a poorly functioning judge? Thoughts?
Friday, November 09, 2007
Congrats to Dick Gregorie
Richard Gregorie was honored today as the best prosecutor *in the country*. (via Miami Herald)
What an honor! He prosecuted Noriega and is currently prosecuting the Liberty City 7.
I've litigated against Dick (the biggest case was USA v. Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela) and he is a true gentleman. Congratulations!
What an honor! He prosecuted Noriega and is currently prosecuting the Liberty City 7.
I've litigated against Dick (the biggest case was USA v. Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela) and he is a true gentleman. Congratulations!
Thursday, November 08, 2007
More on Narseal Batiste
Today was Batiste's third day of testifying. I like the idea of him being called as a witness, but 3 days is too long to be up there... Jurors get bored. Anyway, he was crying today. Here's more from Curt Anderson:
Wiping away tears, the suspected ringleader of a budding terror cell testified Thursday that none of his six co-defendants were told about a plot to destroy the Sears Tower that the leader said he was making up to con a possible terrorism financier out of money.
Narseal Batiste, 33, said he did not inform his six "brothers" about plans he was describing to a Middle Eastern man who appeared to be an al-Qaida emissary, but who was in reality an FBI informant carrying a hidden tape recorder.
"Nobody knew about it. Like I said, this was imagination," Batiste testified. "I would have been deeply embarrassed if any of the brothers knew I was engaging in that kind of conversation."
Batiste got choked up after his attorney, Ana M. Jhones, asked how the "mission" of the six other defendants differed from the violent attacks he was discussing with the informant, a man he knew as "Brother Mohammed."
"The only mission the brothers had was just walking through the neighborhood and preaching about Jesus," Batiste said. A lunch recess was called after he became emotional and was unable to continue on the witness stand.
Wiping away tears, the suspected ringleader of a budding terror cell testified Thursday that none of his six co-defendants were told about a plot to destroy the Sears Tower that the leader said he was making up to con a possible terrorism financier out of money.
Narseal Batiste, 33, said he did not inform his six "brothers" about plans he was describing to a Middle Eastern man who appeared to be an al-Qaida emissary, but who was in reality an FBI informant carrying a hidden tape recorder.
"Nobody knew about it. Like I said, this was imagination," Batiste testified. "I would have been deeply embarrassed if any of the brothers knew I was engaging in that kind of conversation."
Batiste got choked up after his attorney, Ana M. Jhones, asked how the "mission" of the six other defendants differed from the violent attacks he was discussing with the informant, a man he knew as "Brother Mohammed."
"The only mission the brothers had was just walking through the neighborhood and preaching about Jesus," Batiste said. A lunch recess was called after he became emotional and was unable to continue on the witness stand.
Big cases
1. The government has moved to disqualify the Federal Public Defender's office in the Joe Cool case. Here's an article covering the latest from the hearing. Judge Huck is considering the motion and hasn't ruled yet.
2. Narseal Batiste is still on the stand in the Liberty City 7 case. Here's the latest from Jay Weaver:
In effect, Batiste and his lawyer, Ana Jhones, tried to leave a dozen Miami-Dade jurors with the impression that the ringleader only talked about waging holy war as a ruse to obtain big bucks from Assad."I wanted the money for support. That was the only reason I was there," said Batiste, who was barely scraping by as he tried to launch a religious group called the Moorish Science Temple in a concrete warehouse in Liberty City. The religion blends Christianity, Judaism and Islam.Batiste also testified that al-Saidi coached him to put on a "show" for Assad, saying that he would likely get his money if he provided details of a terror plot to the Middle Eastern contact."If you're going to get this support, you have to do something," Batiste recalled al-Saidi telling him before Assad's arrival in December 2005."The only plan I had was to clean up our community," Batiste testified.
2. Narseal Batiste is still on the stand in the Liberty City 7 case. Here's the latest from Jay Weaver:
In effect, Batiste and his lawyer, Ana Jhones, tried to leave a dozen Miami-Dade jurors with the impression that the ringleader only talked about waging holy war as a ruse to obtain big bucks from Assad."I wanted the money for support. That was the only reason I was there," said Batiste, who was barely scraping by as he tried to launch a religious group called the Moorish Science Temple in a concrete warehouse in Liberty City. The religion blends Christianity, Judaism and Islam.Batiste also testified that al-Saidi coached him to put on a "show" for Assad, saying that he would likely get his money if he provided details of a terror plot to the Middle Eastern contact."If you're going to get this support, you have to do something," Batiste recalled al-Saidi telling him before Assad's arrival in December 2005."The only plan I had was to clean up our community," Batiste testified.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Liberty City 7 defendant takes stand!
Yesterday, Narseal Batiste took the stand in his own defense. According to Vanessa Blum:
Batiste, who seemed at ease as he spoke to the jury, said the events leading to his June 2006 arrest began with his desire to raise money for a non-profit religious organization in Liberty City.
Asked if his group, the Universal Divine Saviors, received many donations, Batiste responded, "Quite frankly, if I'd received donations, I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now. So the answer is no."
I agree with the commentors in the article that it's a high-risk strategy, but it's one the defense had to take. Based on how these guys were portrayed, the only way a jury is going to rule for them is to think of them as real people who were just trying to get by, not terrorists. Stay tuned...
Batiste, who seemed at ease as he spoke to the jury, said the events leading to his June 2006 arrest began with his desire to raise money for a non-profit religious organization in Liberty City.
Asked if his group, the Universal Divine Saviors, received many donations, Batiste responded, "Quite frankly, if I'd received donations, I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now. So the answer is no."
I agree with the commentors in the article that it's a high-risk strategy, but it's one the defense had to take. Based on how these guys were portrayed, the only way a jury is going to rule for them is to think of them as real people who were just trying to get by, not terrorists. Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)