Dismissal of some counts in the Ben Kuehne case?

Thanks to a tipster, check out this Government motion for extension of time to respond to the defense motions:


GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IN WHICH TO
RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE COUNT AND FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
The United States, by and through the undersigned attorneys,
respectfully requests that this Court grant an enlargement of
time for the Government to respond to the Motion of Defendant
Kuehne to Dismiss Count Six of the indictment and for a Bill of
Particulars. Defendants Florez-Velez and Saldarriaga have both
moved to join in the motion to dismiss. The reasons for this
request are set forth herein.
The Government’s responses to the above pleadings are due to
be filed on March 24, 2008. The undersigned prosecutor has
recently become lead counsel in this matter and has undertaken a
review of the current charges in the case. As part of that review
process, there have been discussions at the Department of Justice
concerning whether there should be a voluntary dismissal of these
counts. In that event, the current defense motions would become
moot. Unfortunately, the Department has not been able to reach a
conclusion as to this matter and the undersigned has been
instructed to seek a brief continuance - in the nature of three
weeks - so that the matter can be subject to further discussion.
In accordance with Local Rule 88.9, the undersigned has
personally spoken with Joaquin Mendez, Esquire, counsel for
defendant Saldarriaga, who indicated no objection to the
requested continuance. In addition, John Nields, Esquire,
counsel for defendant Kuehne, has indicated that he has no
objection to the requested continuance. The undersigned left a
voice message for Henry P. Bell, Esquire, counsel for defendant
Gloria Florez Velez, informing him of the request.
A draft order is attached hereto for the Court’s
consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
KENNETH BLANCO, CHIEF
NARCOTIC AND DANGEROUS
DRUG SECTION
RICHARD WEBER, CHIEF
ASSET FORFEITURE AND MONEY
LAUNDERING SECTION
/s/ Robert Feitel
By:
ROBERT FEITEL
JOHN W. SELLERS
THOMAS J. PINDER
TRIAL ATTORNEYS
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 307-3586

So, the Government has a new lead lawyer and is now reviewing some of the counts to see if they should be dismissed. Thoughts?

Trials...

The Liberty City 7 (six) case is winding down. Closing arguments started today. Coverage from the usual suspects here, here and here.

Can you imagine if this case hangs again (as the first set of jurors suggested after they couldn't reach a verdict). Would the government try it again? Should they?

As for Ben Kuehne's trial, it's set for Jan 2009.

"This prosecution boldly goes where none has gone before."

That's Milton Hirsch (I'm a sucker for Star Trek references) on Ben Kuehne's indictment, which is covered today in the DBR. The article focuses on the defense motions filed in the case.

The AP also had a story this weekend on the case.

Interestingly, Kuehne's lawyers have decided not to comment on the case at all. I guess they can do that because the criminal defense bar has (rightly) rallied behind Ben and comments on his behalf. Edward Bennett Williams has a policy at Williams & Connolly that no one was to comment to the press -- he could have that policy because he was best friends with the owner and editor of the Washington Post and gave lots of background info to the papers. I don't think W&C has that policy anymore.

Thw WSJ Blog covers defense lawyers talking to the press in the Scruggs case here. It's an interesting read.

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles

Or boats... Here's how Chief Judge Kozinski starts out an opinion in NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. v. C’EST MOI, INC.:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider the doctrine that’s on everyone’s lips: uberrimae fidei.

I had no idea either. According to Black's law, the Latin phrase means: The most abundant good faith; absolute and perfect candor or openness and honesty. It's a common phrase for you maritime lawyers.

As for planes, here's John Pacenti's article about seizures related to aircraft.

I know, I know -- this isn't the most gripping post I've ever done. But help me readers -- are there any great trials out there to blog about?

In the meantime, you can check out the other local blogs for fun posts about our state legislature at work allowing exemptions for plumbers re the low underwear law (via Rumpole) or fighting over fees (via South Florida Lawyers). And for my AUSA friends, here's a piece about shackling PDs (don't get too excited).

"RAZOR MANIAC JUMPS FED PROSECUTOR IN COURT"

Luckily it wasn't in this District. It happened in the Eastern District of New York.

Above the Law has more details including the transcript of the proceeding and the actions of the court reporter, who jumped on the defendant.

When I was a PD, a colleague (who was a former cop) had a client rush the judge. The PD jumped on his back and pinned his arms behind his back as the Marshals watched. It was a pretty funny sight...

My Apologies

Sorry for being gone the last couple days.

I will get back to blogging soon.

In the meantime -- it's March Madness. If you want to win a Supreme Court bobblehead, fill out your brackets here. Quickly!

Or catch up on all the recent cert grants in the Supreme Court (and the Heller arguments).

Of note to many of you -- the Miami Zuckerman Spaeder office has closed as everyone has bolted. Mike Pasano, Steve Bronis, Paul Calli, Tom Meeks, Walter Tache, and Marissel Descalzo are headed to Carlton Fields. Not sure where the other Miami Zuckerman lawyers are headed.

Greenberg Traurig indicted...

...in Guam (via ABA Journal).

It relates to the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Dersh on Spitzer

Here is Professor Alan Dershowitz's take on the Eliot Spitzer case. I post it because it is very different than the way most of us feel about Mr. Spitzer. Here's a snippet:

The federal criminal investigation that has led to Eliot Spitzer's resignation as governor of New York illustrates the great dangers all Americans face from vague and open-ended sex and money-transaction statutes.
Federal law, if read broadly, criminalizes virtually all sexual encounters for which something of value has been given. Federal money-laundering statutes criminalize many entirely legitimate and conventional banking transactions. Congress enacted these laws to give federal prosecutors wide discretion in deciding which "bad guys" to go after.
Generally, wise and intelligent prosecutors use their discretion properly -- to target organized crime, terrorism, financial predation, exploitation of children and the like. But the very existence of these selectively enforced statutes poses grave dangers of abuse. They lie around like loaded guns waiting to be used against the enemies of politically motivated investigators, prosecutors and politicians.

He concludes:

Lavrenti Beria, the head of Joseph Stalin's KGB, once quipped to his boss, "show me the man and I will find the crime." The Soviet Union was notorious for having accordion-like criminal laws that could be adjusted to fit almost any dissident target. The U.S. is a far cry from the Soviet Union, but our laws are dangerously overbroad.

Both Democrats and Republicans have targeted political adversaries over the years. The weapons of choice are almost always elastic criminal laws. And few laws are more elastic, and susceptible to abuse, than federal laws on money laundering and sex crimes. For the sake of all Americans, these laws should be narrowed and limited to predatory crimes with real victims.


Thoughts?