Rumpole takes state prosecutor David Waksman to task for his comments to the press after a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, which raises the question about what prosecutors can say to the press. This NY Times editorial addresses the recent comments by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Gov. Blago fiasco. It starts out laying out the basic standards for prosecutors:
Prosecutors have a special place in our criminal justice system. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct note that a “prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate,” and therefore owes a “special duty” to the court.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has emphasized that “a prosecutor has a special duty commensurate with a prosecutor’s unique power, to assure that defendants receive fair trials.” Another United States Court of Appeals has observed that “prosecutors sometimes forget that the prosecutor’s special duty is not to convict, but to secure justice.”
Does this apply to high profile cases?
There is no question that these principles extend to public statements, particularly in high-profile cases that engender public interest and press coverage. The obvious risk is that a prosecutor’s statements outside the courtroom, particularly statements that pillory a defendant, will taint the pool of prospective jurors and make it less likely that a defendant can receive a fair trial. For this reason, and also because it is fundamentally fair to do so, courts limit the prerogatives of lawyers, particularly prosecutors, to make public statements about pending cases.
So what did Fitzgerald say?
Against this backdrop, it is hard to feel comfortable with Mr. Fitzgerald’s remarks in announcing the charges that Mr. Blagojevich’s conduct amounted to a “political corruption crime spree” and “would make Lincoln roll over in his grave,” that “the breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering,” that Mr. Blagojevich “put a ‘for sale’ sign on the naming of a United States senator” and that his conduct was “cynical” and “appalling” and has “taken us to a truly new low.”
To conclude:
This is not to express an opinion, one way or another, about Mr. Blagojevich’s guilt or innocence. But he is entitled to a fair trial, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that such a trial has become less likely as a result of these public remarks by this otherwise very competent and effective prosecutor.
In 1935, in a case read by virtually every law student since, the Supreme Court issued an eloquent statement of the special role of prosecutors:
“The United States attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”
As able a courtroom lawyer as Mr. Fitzgerald is, he — indeed, all prosecutors — might consider limiting pejorative characterizations of a defendant to open court, after the jury is in the box.
The Waksman comments are less problematic because they were after the jury reached its verdict. And Rumpole's commentors raise some pretty good defenses for Waskman. But can anyone defend Fitzgerald's comments?
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
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
FECA matter
The government has moved to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit filed by Ted Klein's family.
Julie Kay has the details here:
A wrongful death case brought by the children of a federal magistrate judge in Miami who they say died due to moldy conditions at a federal courthouse should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the government is arguing. In a motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 28, attorneys for the Justice Department argued that the only remedy open to Andrew and Jennifer Klein, children of former Magistrate Judge Ted Klein, is the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. "The FECA was enacted to provide benefits to federal employees injured or killed in the course of performing their duties," states the motion. "It serves as the sole remedy against the United States for any on-the-job injury or death. Liah Catanese, an attorney for the Kleins at Alan Goldfarb P.A. in Miami, declined comment, saying their response would be laid out soon in a court document.
Any FECA experts out there? Is the government correct?
Julie Kay has the details here:
A wrongful death case brought by the children of a federal magistrate judge in Miami who they say died due to moldy conditions at a federal courthouse should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the government is arguing. In a motion to dismiss filed on Nov. 28, attorneys for the Justice Department argued that the only remedy open to Andrew and Jennifer Klein, children of former Magistrate Judge Ted Klein, is the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. "The FECA was enacted to provide benefits to federal employees injured or killed in the course of performing their duties," states the motion. "It serves as the sole remedy against the United States for any on-the-job injury or death. Liah Catanese, an attorney for the Kleins at Alan Goldfarb P.A. in Miami, declined comment, saying their response would be laid out soon in a court document.
Any FECA experts out there? Is the government correct?
Thursday, December 11, 2008
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."
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
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.
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, December 08, 2008
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)