Could the CEO of Coca-Cola win dismissal of a suit that contends he personally put mice in soda bottles?

That's the hypo that Justice Breyer presented at a recent oral argument. From the ABA Journal, which has been providing great coverage lately:

The issue before the court is whether Javaid Iqbal’s suit against former Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller is specific enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the New York Times reports. Igbal contends that after Sept. 11 he was put in jail where he was beaten and subjected to extreme temperatures and constant light. He pleaded guilty to identity fraud and was deported to Pakistan, but was cleared of any involvement in terrorism, according to the Washington Post.
Iqbal claims Ashcroft and Mueller formulated policies that singled him out because of his nationality and religion. Most of the justices who spoke appeared sympathetic to the government’s argument in favor of dismissal, report the Los Angeles Times and Legal Times. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter spoke in favor of allowing the suit.
One of those appearing to side with the government was Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who advanced the mouse-in-a-bottle hypothetical. Breyer explained the hypo this way, according to a separate Legal Times story:
"Jones sues the president of Coca-Cola. His claim is the president personally put a mouse in the bottle. Now, he has no reason for thinking that. Then his lawyer says: 'OK, I'm now going to take seven depositions of the president of Coca-Cola.' The president of Coca-Cola says: 'You know, I don't have time for this; there is no basis. ... I don't want to go and spend the time to answer questions.' "
Breyer asked if the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would allow dismissal. Solicitor General Gregory Garre said the suit could be tossed under Rule 8. He noted the Supreme Court 2007 decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which interpreted the rule as requiring plaintiffs to “show a plausible entitlement to relief."

Federal judges to get COLA if...

...the auto industry is bailed out. Thanks to a helpful comment, I see from the WSJ law blog that:

So this $14 billion bailout bill currently making its way through the halls of Congress stands mostly to benefit the U.S. auto industry. But it also, oddly, stands to benefit federal district judges.
Here’s why: The bill attaches an annual cost-of-living adjustment — or COLA — for federal judges, which, when implemented, will bring them in line with members of Congress, who get a $5,000 boost at the start of the year. District judges and members of Congress make $169,300. Here’s the AP story. Click here, here and here for other LB posts on the topic of judicial pay, which has been raging for years.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted that the judicial pay raise go into the bill. The Senate passed the judicial pay measure as a separate bill in November, but the House never acted. As a result, Reid has taken the unusual step of linking the obscure but important judicial pay issue to the unpopular auto bailout.
There is concern among many policymakers that judges are not paid enough relative to the importance of their offices, and in six of the past 13 years, judges have been denied their pay raise as lawmakers opted not to take their own COLA.

I will be candid with you. I simply cannot follow your argument because I believe you have just made a statement to me that is utterly irrational.”

While the Third DCA is bashing a juvenile judge, check out this bashing by Justice Souter of a lawyer who was arguing on Tuesday in the High Court. Ouch... You never really want to hear that your argument is "utterly irrational." From Adam Liptak's NYTimes article:

There were flashes of incredulity and anger from justices at the Supreme Court on Tuesday as they considered whether Tennessee prosecutors had committed misconduct in obtaining and defending a death sentence against a man who murdered a Memphis couple in 1980.
Gary B. Cone admitted to the murders, and the only defense he offered at his trial was that he had been in an amphetamine psychosis. Prosecutors worked hard to discredit the defense, calling it “baloney.” Years later, though, it turned out that prosecutors had withheld evidence from Mr. Cone’s lawyers that would have supported his claim.
Jennifer L. Smith, a lawyer in the state attorney general’s office, was vigorous in her defense of the prosecutors’ conduct. She said that they had no legal or ethical obligation to provide the information to the defense and that it would not have mattered anyway.
Justice David H. Souter, who served as the attorney general of New Hampshire early in his career, did not like those answers. “I will be candid with you,” he told Ms. Smith. “I simply cannot follow your argument because I believe you have just made a statement to me that is utterly irrational.”
After Mr. Cone’s lawyers finally obtained the withheld evidence more than a decade after his conviction, prosecutors gave the courts a series of wildly inconsistent reasons for why Mr. Cone’s conviction and death sentence should not be re-examined in light of the new information. The issue had already been decided, they said. Or it had been presented too late. Or it had never been presented at all.
On this point, Ms. Smith was willing to acknowledge that prosecutors had made missteps. “We have confessed that there was an error by the state,” she said. But she seemed to place some of the blame on Mr. Cone, saying his lawyers had filed unwieldy and confusing papers.
"He buried all his good arguments,” Ms. Smith said of Mr. Cone.

Oh... It was the defense lawyer's fault for burying all those good arguments! Breyer wasn't buying it.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Mr. Cone’s briefs had been clear enough.
“Don’t you think,” Justice Breyer asked Ms. Smith, that Mr. Cone was “saying in his briefs: ‘I’ve been getting the runaround. First, they tell me it’s one thing; then they tell me another’?”

If we really want to solve the Brady problem, discovery rules in federal criminal cases need to be fixed. To see the absurdity of the federal criminal discovery, one need only compare it to federal civil discovery. The best prosecutors are the ones who say, I'll give you everything -- I have an open file policy. Those prosecutors typically have the strongest cases and get the most pleas from defendants. When non-lawyers hear that you find out the witnesses and exhibits on the first day of a federal criminal trial, they can't believe it. Their jaws drop when they hear that you get the prior statements of witnesses when the witness actually takes the stand. More and more, judges are forcing prosecutors to turn over some material earlier, which is helpful. But there should be more liberal rules about witness statements being disclosed (including summaries of those statements by agents), and witness and exhibit lists being disclosed.

Find me guilty

Sharhazad Mir Gholikhan is back in trial before Judge Cohn. You remember her -- she's the one who is accused of exporting night vision goggles to Iran. Bill Barzee represented her at her first trial where the jury could not reach a verdict. This time she is representing herself! Yesterday she conducted voir dire and did her opening in her prison khakis. When asked why she wouldn't wear civilian clothes, she responded that she had nothing to hide from the jury....

Here's the trailer from the movie Find Me Guilty, about a mobster who represented himself in the longest trial in U.S. history.

Monday morning...

Wanna know why our justice system is totally screwed up -- look here. That's the Herald article explaining that Lyglenson Lemorin , the only Liberty City 7 defendant who was acquitted, has just been ordered deported. So to review -- the other defendants are out on bond waiting for their third trial, while Lemorin -- WHO WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY -- is stuck in an immigration jail waiting to be deported because an immigration judge found that he did the same things for which a jury said no.

Here is the Herald article:

A year after being acquitted on terrorism conspiracy charges in the Liberty City 7 case, a Haitian-born Miami man has been ordered deported by an immigration judge.
Lyglenson Lemorin won acquittal on criminal charges last December after persuading a federal jury that he was only marginally involved in the so-called Liberty City 7, a band of devotees of an inner-city religious group the government contends conspired to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and Miami's FBI building in 2006.
Lemorin fled with his family to Atlanta to get away from the group's leaders.
But Kenneth Hurwitz, an immigration judge at the Krome Avenue detention center who conducted a weeklong removal hearing in August, concluded in a 135-page ruling received by Lemorin's attorneys Friday that the Haitian native, a legal U.S. resident, did provide ''material support'' to a group he knew had plans for attacks.
The standard of proof is lower in immigration court, which is not a fully independent tribunal but part of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The material support Hurwitz cites: Lemorin's work for group leader Narseal Batiste's stucco business. His ruling concedes Lemorin did not participate in the main activities the group undertook in furthering alleged plans for attacks -- including surveillance photos and videos of potential targets or the alleged ''kidnapping'' of a pair of government informants who infiltrated the group.
But Hurwitz said Lemorin's knowledge of the surveillance, along with his pledging a contested ''oath'' to al Qaeda administered by one of the informants, was sufficient to classify him as a terrorist supporter, even though the judge concluded Lemorin was ''technically'' not a member or supporter of al Qaeda.
Lemorin testified he did not understand the oath and believed Batiste was, in the judge's words, ''talking crap'' about attacks to draw money from the FBI informants.
But, Hurwitz wrote, ``It does not matter if he believed that the organization was not going to commit terrorist acts. The court also does not believe that he did not understand what he was doing when he took an oath to support an organization that has forcibly opposed the United States.''
It's unlikely that Lemorin -- who has been held in immigration detention since his acquittal -- will be deported anytime soon.
His Atlanta attorney, Charles Kuck, said he will argue to Hurwitz that Lemorin should be allowed to remain in the United States because he could be tortured or mistreated if returned to Haiti. Kuck said he will appeal Hurwitz's decision if necessary.
That could take months. In the meantime, he expects Lemorin, who is being held in rural Georgia, to remain in detention and separated from his children and his ill wife, who are in Miami.
Four of Lemorin's co-defendants are free on bond following two mistrials. Batiste and the other five defendants are set for a third trial in January.

Someone explain to me how this is just.

In related news, Joel DeFabio was a finalist for most effective criminal justice lawyer in 2008 for his representation of Lemorin in the criminal trial. The most effective lawyers were Stephen Carlton, John Kastrenakes and Antonia Barnes for their prosecution of Palm Beach politicians. Other finalists were: Richard Lubin, Michael Metz, Douglas Hartman & Bruce Reinhart (for their successful health care fraud defense); and Ken Swartz, Marc Seitles & Steve Amster (for their successul drug trafficking and money laundering defense). Congrats to all of the winners and finalists for great results, especially my office-mate Marc, but how doesn't DeFabio win this one hands down? The other winners & finalists are here.

And finally while we are on the Review, John Pacenti covers Judge Peter Fay's speech from the Bench & Bar conference. He covers the portion dealing with judicial pay and Fay explains that district judges should get a raise from $169,000 to $342,000. I agree that $169K is way too low. First year associates in New York make more. So dear readers -- what are your thoughts? How much should district judges be making?

"Suspect in Dunkin' Donuts robberies barks at judge"

Why we need cameras in federal court: The headline and article about this case just don't capture what happened as well the video does (at this link).

Julie Kay follows...

... our post about the public defender controversy in Jacksonville here.

Here's the intro:

Attorneys who were fired en masse by a newly elected public defender and state attorney in Jacksonville, Fla., are considering legal action. Meanwhile, the incident is igniting controversy and debates about whether employees of these offices should be civil service employees and whether the position of public defender and state attorney should be appointed rather than elected. The Fourth Circuit in Florida, which includes Jacksonville and the counties of Duval, Nassau and Clay, both elected a new state attorney and public defender in recent months. Public Defender Matt Shirk and State Attorney Angela Corey, both Republicans, defeated longtime employees of their respective offices. Shirk, 35, worked as an assistant public defender in the office for five years and as a private attorney for four years. He defeated Bill White, a Democrat who worked in the public defender's office for 34 years. Shirk, who takes over the position on Jan. 6, fired 10 attorneys from the office on Nov. 21. He did so by sending an e-mail to White, telling him to fire the attorneys. In the e-mail, he spelled several of their names wrong.

From Celeste Higgins

I am happy to announce Dan Ricker will be the second speaker in the FBA's Luncheon Series.
Mr. Ricker is the publisher and editor of Watchdog Review and a local contributor to The Miami Herald, WLRN Radio and WLRN TV. Mr. Ricker gave up a life of wealth and leisure to be the community's eyes and ears in local government. He provides us with neutral and nonpartisan information about our elected officials.
As "all politics is local politics" and local politics affects us all, I'm sure Mr. Ricker will provide us with great insight to that part of our government we are not always able to observe first-hand.
You may have heard that our first speaker was Beth Wilkinson, former General Counsel of Fannie Mae. She provided us with a fascinating view from within the financial markets and mortgage crisis. Our second speaker is going to be just as interesting.

This month's speaker should prove to provide a very interesting presentation. It will be held Wednesday, Dec. 10th at noon at the Bankers Club. Please RSVP with Lourdes Fernandez at 305-523-5771.
Thank you,
Celeste S. Higgins, President
Federal Bar Association