That's according to the Daily Business Review today. The entire quote:
"Their attorneys blames their conviction on the numerous times prosecutors used al Qaeda and its leader Obama bin Laden in trial. Cooke also allowed jurors to see a videotape of Obama bin Laden."
WHOOPS!
UPDATE -- on reflection, I'm sorry I posted this. The article is actually very good and has some interesting points and quotes. We all make typos and mistakes. It was mean of me to point it out.
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
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thoughts on Padilla sentencing
- Many news outlets are referring to the 17 year sentence as "lenient." Since when did 17 years become a lenient sentence? Think about where you were 17 years ago.
- Some commenters are wondering why Padilla's sentence was the longest of the three defendants when his role was arguably the least serious. Answer: He had the worst criminal history. He is a career offender under the sentencing guidelines, while the other two defendants are not.
- Will Padilla get credit for time he served in the naval brig?
- Will the government appeal the sentences? They would very likely lose after the recent Supreme Court cases, Gall and Kimbrough, which gave very wide latitude to district judges in sentencing defendants. If they know they will likely lose, will they still appeal just to make a point?
- Thank goodness for the Supreme Court's Apprendi line of cases. It lets judges judge again at sentencing.
Jose Padilla sentenced
Judge Marcia Cooke sentenced Jose Padilla to just over 17 years today. Co-defendant Adham Amin Hassoun received 15 years and eight months, and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, received 12 years and eight months.
The sentences mark huge victories for the defense because the advisory sentencing guideline range calculated by the judge was 30 years to life, and the government was asking for life.
Judge Cooke explained: “There is no evidence that these defendants personally, killed maimed or kidnapped.” She also said that she could consider Padilla's harsh treatment in the brig, over government objection.
With good time, Padilla will be released in about 12 years. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley objected to the sentences, calling them unreasonable. It will be interesting to see whether the government appeals the sentences after Gall and Kimbrough, the recent Supreme Court cases which give district courts very wide latitude in sentencing.
The over-under wasn't too far off, I guess.
UPDATE -- a number of people have emailed me asking about Judge Marcia Cooke. Here is original post I wrote about her when the case was first assigned to her division. I think she has demonstrated her independence and courage. Here is what I said about her back then in November 2005:
Perhaps DOJ looked at Judge Cooke's resume and saw that she was a Bush appointee and a former AUSA and thought that she would be a push-over for the feds. Froomkin (who I doubt has ever appeared before her) goes so far as to say "the government should not expect a hostile bench." If this is what the government thought, it is dead wrong. Judge Cooke -- to put it in Chief Justice Roberts' words -- calls a strike a strike and a ball a ball, and will not be pushed around by the government. She is known in this community as a fair judge who listens carefully to both sides and calls it right down the middle. She is well liked by criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors alike.
The sentences mark huge victories for the defense because the advisory sentencing guideline range calculated by the judge was 30 years to life, and the government was asking for life.
Judge Cooke explained: “There is no evidence that these defendants personally, killed maimed or kidnapped.” She also said that she could consider Padilla's harsh treatment in the brig, over government objection.
With good time, Padilla will be released in about 12 years. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley objected to the sentences, calling them unreasonable. It will be interesting to see whether the government appeals the sentences after Gall and Kimbrough, the recent Supreme Court cases which give district courts very wide latitude in sentencing.
The over-under wasn't too far off, I guess.
UPDATE -- a number of people have emailed me asking about Judge Marcia Cooke. Here is original post I wrote about her when the case was first assigned to her division. I think she has demonstrated her independence and courage. Here is what I said about her back then in November 2005:
Perhaps DOJ looked at Judge Cooke's resume and saw that she was a Bush appointee and a former AUSA and thought that she would be a push-over for the feds. Froomkin (who I doubt has ever appeared before her) goes so far as to say "the government should not expect a hostile bench." If this is what the government thought, it is dead wrong. Judge Cooke -- to put it in Chief Justice Roberts' words -- calls a strike a strike and a ball a ball, and will not be pushed around by the government. She is known in this community as a fair judge who listens carefully to both sides and calls it right down the middle. She is well liked by criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors alike.
Big SDFLA day
Judge Cooke will impose sentence this morning in the Padilla case. The CSM asks the following question:
Can a suspected future terrorist receive the same harsh punishment meted out against actual terrorists who were personally involved in planning or carrying out genuine bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings?
The article then tracks some of Michael Caruso's arguments:
In a hearing on Friday, Padilla's lawyer, Acting Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, argued that there is no comparison between his client's conduct and the conduct of convicted terrorists currently serving sentences of life in prison.
•Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb on a crowded commercial airliner over the Atlantic Ocean in December 2001.
•Zacarias Moussaoui admitted to infiltrating the US to serve in a second wave of Al Qaeda attacks similar to the massive 9/11 terrorist attacks.
•Ramzi Yousef planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six and injured at least 1,000 and was the mastermind of a foiled 1995 plot to assassinate the pope and simultaneously bomb 11 airliners carrying 4,000 passengers.
•Wadi El-Hage helped plan the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 and injured 4,500.
Professor Berman at his sentencing blog is covering the case here.
And the retrial of another big case starts up today, but I can't comment on it.
Can a suspected future terrorist receive the same harsh punishment meted out against actual terrorists who were personally involved in planning or carrying out genuine bombings, assassinations, and kidnappings?
The article then tracks some of Michael Caruso's arguments:
In a hearing on Friday, Padilla's lawyer, Acting Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, argued that there is no comparison between his client's conduct and the conduct of convicted terrorists currently serving sentences of life in prison.
•Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb on a crowded commercial airliner over the Atlantic Ocean in December 2001.
•Zacarias Moussaoui admitted to infiltrating the US to serve in a second wave of Al Qaeda attacks similar to the massive 9/11 terrorist attacks.
•Ramzi Yousef planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six and injured at least 1,000 and was the mastermind of a foiled 1995 plot to assassinate the pope and simultaneously bomb 11 airliners carrying 4,000 passengers.
•Wadi El-Hage helped plan the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 and injured 4,500.
Professor Berman at his sentencing blog is covering the case here.
And the retrial of another big case starts up today, but I can't comment on it.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Courthouse renamed for judge who championed causes for social justice"
More on the renaming of the C. Clyde Atkins courthouse here (by NLJ's Julie Kay).
A Miami federal courthouse will officially be named after a popular deceased judge known for his rulings desegregating Miami schools and championing the rights of homeless people and Cuban and Haitian boat people. The courthouse now known as the "Tower Building" will be officially renamed the C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse at a ceremony Jan. 28 outside the courthouse. It is the last of four Miami federal courthouses to be named after a federal judge. Atkins, who died in 1999, was a judge in the southern district of Florida from 1966 until his death at 84 and served as chief judge from 1977 to 1983. He was nominated to the bench by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Here's what my former boss had to say about him:
Ed Davis, former chief judge of the southern district of Florida and now a partner at Akerman Senterfitt in Miami, said Atkins deserved the honor. "He was very well-liked in the community," Davis said. "He's a wonderful example of what a federal judge should be. He was diligent, he was intelligent, he was hard-working, and he had no agenda except for the interest of justice."
A Miami federal courthouse will officially be named after a popular deceased judge known for his rulings desegregating Miami schools and championing the rights of homeless people and Cuban and Haitian boat people. The courthouse now known as the "Tower Building" will be officially renamed the C. Clyde Atkins United States Courthouse at a ceremony Jan. 28 outside the courthouse. It is the last of four Miami federal courthouses to be named after a federal judge. Atkins, who died in 1999, was a judge in the southern district of Florida from 1966 until his death at 84 and served as chief judge from 1977 to 1983. He was nominated to the bench by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Here's what my former boss had to say about him:
Ed Davis, former chief judge of the southern district of Florida and now a partner at Akerman Senterfitt in Miami, said Atkins deserved the honor. "He was very well-liked in the community," Davis said. "He's a wonderful example of what a federal judge should be. He was diligent, he was intelligent, he was hard-working, and he had no agenda except for the interest of justice."
Memo to thugs:
Don't get on YouTube and taunt law enforcement. You end up looking like this.
Money quote --
Alex Acosta: ''He threatened law enforcement, he said come get him, and we granted his wish."
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
360 to Life
That's the guideline range for Jose Padilla and his two co-defendants as calculated by Judge Cooke. Now the Judge will hear arguments from the lawyers as to what the appropriate sentence is under 3553. In other words, the Judge must determine what sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary. The guideline range is just one of many factors for the Court to consider and the Supreme Court has said that the guideline range is not entitled to any deference. Should be interesting...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)