Federal Bar Association luncheon

Eleventh Circuit Judges Barkett and Marcus spoke today at the Federal Bar luncheon. It was a really fun, engaging talk. They spoke openly about a variety of issues, including the size of the court, cameras in federal court, the value of oral argument and other.

I'll post more about it soon, but I will note that I asked both of them if they read blogs. Judge Marcus said he read "precious little" on the blogosphere, and Judge Barkett said she did read blogs (although she didn't say which ones).

Here are some pictures:

Judge Davis and Judge Marcus discussing issues of the day and Judge Barkett and Judge Marcus answering questions at the podium.

HMO settlement before Judge Moreno

For coverage of these proceedings, go check out SouthFloridaLawyers -- they're all over it.

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.

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?

"Bush's recount lawyer blasts White House administration"

Via NLJ and Julie Kay.

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!

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.