Read Julie Kay's article here:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1207133079914
Other than the flooding, air conditioning, and electrical failures, it should be great.
--David Oscar Markus
www.markuslaw.com
305-379-6667
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
Thursday, April 03, 2008
New courthouse is opening
Sort of.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
"Is it against the law to swear an oath to al-Qaida, agreeing to abide by the directives of al-Qaida?"
That was the fascinating question that the Liberty City 6 jury asked Judge Lenard today.
Curt Anderson from the AP has more here.
Unsurprisingly, the government said that the Court should answer the question Yes, while the defense said No.
According to Anderson: "U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard answered with her own note telling jurors to carefully read her instructions in the case, particularly those describing material support to a foreign terrorist organization." *** "This is a determination for them to make," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "They may see it as providing material support or they may not."
This is not an easy one -- In a pure vacuum, it's obviously not a crime to swear an oath to al-Qaida. The question is whether it's a crime in this case -- did the defendants have the requisite intent to offer material support for a terrorist organization? In that sense, the oath can be viewed as evidence.... So I think Judge Lenard's answer was the appropriate one, although probably not altogether satisfying to either party or to the jurors.
Curt Anderson from the AP has more here.
Unsurprisingly, the government said that the Court should answer the question Yes, while the defense said No.
According to Anderson: "U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard answered with her own note telling jurors to carefully read her instructions in the case, particularly those describing material support to a foreign terrorist organization." *** "This is a determination for them to make," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "They may see it as providing material support or they may not."
This is not an easy one -- In a pure vacuum, it's obviously not a crime to swear an oath to al-Qaida. The question is whether it's a crime in this case -- did the defendants have the requisite intent to offer material support for a terrorist organization? In that sense, the oath can be viewed as evidence.... So I think Judge Lenard's answer was the appropriate one, although probably not altogether satisfying to either party or to the jurors.
Monday, March 31, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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...
Again, thanks to my tipster for the info...
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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?
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?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)