April Fool's...

Rumpole is playing April Fool's over at his blog.

Funny?

UPDATE -- Rumpole claims it was real.

No Liberty City verdict yet

Uh-oh... Any bets on when (if) we'll get a verdict?

In the meantime, check out this WSJ Blog story about a South Florida lawyer in the hot seat because of a "joke" he made with a prosecutor:

Consider this scenario: In 1999, Florida lawyer David Lamos was representing J.B. “Pig” Parker, who faced capital charges for his alleged role in the 1982 murder of store clerk Frances Slater (no relation to the Law Blog). Lamos faxed a motion to the prosecutor in the case, Lawrence Mirman, entitled “Reply to Reubuttal to Defendant’s Objection to State’s Motion to Quash.” The letter, which starts with Parker’s name and includes the words “dig dis” in the first sentence, goes on to cite case law in broken English and includes a passage about another case. “His posishun wuz rejected by de Flo’ida Supreme Court. Man!” the letter said. “He awaits ‘esecushun. De state be dig itably distressed cuz de kicker be on da oda’ foot. Man!”
The two-page motion was written in what experts later referred to as ebonics, and, according to testimony Lamos gave earlier this month, was intended as a “jest.” On the cover letter to the fax Lamos wrote, “As you can see, my writing improves with revision.” Lamos later asked Mirman, “Ask Bruce if I can have a job?” referring to Bruce Colton, a Florida state attorney.
As reported in this story from the Palm Beach Post, JoAnn Barone, the public defender now representing Parker at the post-conviction stage, is using the “joke” motion to argue that Lamos wasn’t acting in Parker’s best interest when a judge sentenced Parker to death for the second time. Barone tried to get Lamos to read the letter aloud in the courtroom, above the objections of the prosecutor, but the judge instead read the letter to himself and asked Barone to move on in her questioning.
The Law Blog contacted Lamos to get his side of the story. “I have no idea what [the prosecutors] thought it meant,” said Lamos. “What they were alluding to was a legal motion that, as a joke, was put through a piece of Web-based software that changed the vernacular. But if you look below the surface, the content of the fax was favorable to Parker. I guess what they were trying to make of that was that it amounted to some kind of misconduct in the case. But it had no relevance. It was never made a part of the record, and was never put into evidence. I have no idea where they were going with that. If you look at the content of it, it is ridiculously funny.”

Seems to me that this is ridiculously NOT funny.

Scooped...

So we scooped the Ben Kuehne story yesterday, reporting that new prosecutors were considering dropping some counts in the indictment. A bunch of others (WSJ, DBR, NLJ) picked up on the story with no hat tip to us! How dare they! At least the Review quoted me...

Again, thanks to my tipster for the info...

Chief Judge Moreno allows cell phones for jurors

Big kudos to the Chief!

From Julie Kay's National Law Journal article:

Jurors and witnesses in South Florida federal trials will no longer have to bury their cellphones in the ground before entering the courthouse. U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno, chief judge for the Southern District of Florida, issued an order last week expanding the use of cellphones in the courthouse to prospective jurors, seated jurors and witnesses. The cellphones may have integrated cameras, he stated.

The issue of cellphones in federal court has been somewhat controversial in South Florida. Previous chief judges refused to even allow lawyers to carry cellphones into the courtroom, both for security concerns and to prevent photographs from being taken. Cameras are not allowed in federal courts nationwide, however a movement is now afoot to change that rule.

Since 2006, lawyers, judges, courthouse employees and federal agents have been allowed to bring cellphones into federal courthouses throughout South Florida, including in Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. But jurors, reporters and others have complained about the rule. Sometimes unaware of it, visitors to the courthouses have been forced to bury their cellphones in the ground outside the courthouses and retrieve them when leaving.

In his order, Moreno noted that judges may need to contact jurors during recesses and attorneys may need to contact witnesses on short notice.

Because U.S. marshals will inspect all cellphones, security is not a concern, he stated.

"In today's modern world, security concerns are paramount," stated the order. "Yet these security concerns are satisfied by airlines, the White House, and the majority of courthouses in the United States where cellular telephones are permitted. Expanding the list to include these individuals will not diminish the security provided to the occupants of the courthouse, while at the same time enhance the availability of jurors and witnesses to participate in our court proceedings." Moreno did not extend the privilege to the use of laptops.

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).