The "maybe-nots" have it (updated)

Have a rough day at the office ahead of you today? I bet Judge Lenard can sympathize. Apparently, "sternly order[ing]" the jurors in the Liberty City 6 trial "to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate" (as Curt Anderson put it for AP) did not do the trick. But she is not giving up on them yet. Motion for mistrial denied.

UPDATE: Deliberations are starting again with a new alternate subbing-in for the person now known as "the recalcitrant juror".

A tiresome rant on grammar but you get a free DFW essay out of it

So, the other day I'm at the gym over at the U and one of the undergrads who works there is all excited about his LSAT score and can't wait to apply to law school. I ask him how he feels about grammar and diagramming sentences, and he looks at me like I'm some kind of walking non-sequitur because what he's really good at is arguing.

If only I'd had a copy of yesterday's Flores-Figueroa v. United States in my pocket. This was reported under such headlines as "Justices Limit Use of Identity Theft Law in Immigration Cases" and "High court removes tool for deporting illegals." Those are, of course, much more grabby than the more accurate, "Court rules adverb 'knowingly' modifies entire predicate and its object." Few under 35 would have any idea what that headline meant. (The late, great David Foster Wallace explains why in this brilliant piece that takes a little while to download because it's a pretty big file but is completely worth it.) I can't imagine what they would make of the crux of Justice Breyer's reasoning, which was this:

In ordinary English, where a transitive verb has an object, listeners in most contexts assume that an adverb (such as knowingly) that modifies the transitive verb tells the listener how the subject performed the entire action, including the object as set forth in the sentence.

Dismaying as it is, a world where judges and lawyers don't have a command of grammar—the kind you get from diagramming hundreds of sentences—is anarchic.

The Court's other decisions yesterday would probably reinforce the point (if I had a really good reason to slog through them) because they all involve "statutory interpretation," which is legalese for grammar. Two are about civil procedure issues—a remand of state claims to state court is appealable even though the statute says it isn't and the circuit courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review a denial of a stay of arbitration. One is about liability under CERCLA. (Shell won; that's as far as I want to get into that one.)

Too much democracy

Go here right now and type in David Oscar Markus. Or copy and paste it. I've made it easy for you.

P.S. If you are interested in keeping up with every pundit's musings on who should get Souter's seat, How Appealing has enough links to suck up your whole work day.

Help Wanted

So, D.O.M. calls and he's all, "Why haven't you posted anything all day long?" and I'm like, "Dude, I've been working like a dog, yo," and he's all up in my face with, "Doing what?" like he's the boss of me or whatevers and I'm like, "Grading papers and exams," and then he busts out with, "What's all that wind?" like if he doesn't know I like to grade on the Bay and now that's gonna be a thing because, "Think of the Blog!" and everything.

Anyway, the races are on. Applications are now being taken for district judges, U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Marshals. Here's the official announcement:

Pursuant to the instructions set forth in the attached letter from Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Mel Martinez, dated April 30, 2009, the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission is now accepting applications for the following positions:
U.S. District Judge, Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Judge, Middle District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Middle District of Florida
U.S. Attorney and U.S. Marshal, Southern District of Florida

The revised Rules of Procedure for the Judicial Nominating Commission, dated April 30, 2009, application forms with incorporated instructions, and the names and addresses of the members of the Commission are available at the following Web sites:

1) The Florida Bar; 2) the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida; 3) the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida; and 4) the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In addition, these materials may also be obtained from the Commission Chair, John M. Fitzgibbons, The Law Offices of John M. Fitzgibbons, 707 North Franklin St., Suite 700, Tampa, FL 33602.

Completed applications must be received by the Commission Chair and commission members in the manner specified by the Rules of Procedure by 5 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2009. Applicants who are selected by the commission for personal interviews will be subsequently notified as to the date, time and location of the interviews.

You have to figure they'll be about this careful, so this can't be fun. And above is what the SDFla looked like today if you were busy grading papers like I was.

"Please help us, judge."

It didn't take. The mind-wipe, I mean. It didn't work.

Friday afternoon, deliberations over the fate of the Liberty City Six hit a new snag, according to reports by the Associated Press and the Miami Herald. Here's the abridged version of the AP report:

A few hours after an ill juror was replaced, a note signed by the jury foreman in the "Liberty City Six" case said a female juror "refuses to engage in discussions based on the evidence or the law" and that this could be "unfair to the defendants," according to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard. The note said the juror was disruptive and had made comments offensive to others.

"Please help us, judge," the note said, adding the juror "feels deliberating is a waste of time."

In court Friday, the juror accused of not wanting to deliberate also sent her own note, complaining that she feels under "attack" from the others and hinted she may have made comments about the law that were "misinterpreted."

After summarizing the notes in court, Lenard summoned the jurors back into court and sternly ordered them to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate. Lenard told the panel to return Monday.

"This may clear up the problem," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "Maybe not."

SDFla Blog Origins

This month Hollywood brings us the career-beginning adventures of Wolverine and the mutants and (way more importantly) the crew of the Starship Enterprise. So I thought I'd stay on theme and screen the clip of how D.O.M. came to start this blog.

And that's how it happened.

Judge Altonaga feted in New Haven

The Latino Law Students Association at Yale Law School is awarding SDFla Judge Altonaga (YLS '86) its Public Service Award tonight at New Haven's Union League Café. Dean (and Supreme Court Candidate®) Harold Koh is scheduled to attend. Last year, LLSA honored Judge (and Supreme Court Candidate®) José Cabranes (which we know because they have yet to update their web site). Maybe they'll post some pictures or a nice blurb on their blog or Facebook page.

The photo is YLS's Sterling Law Building in 2006 and the guy who wouldn't get out of my shot.

Bern backs UBS

The government of Switzerland filed an elegantly understated amicus brief for Judge Gold's consideration on Thursday (according to PACER) or yesterday (according to the media). The upshot of it is that enforcement of the United States' summons—which it implies (but refrains from outright saying) is just a "fishing expedition"—circumvents the applicable treaty and violates Swiss law. Here is the very abridged version:

The Government of Switzerland has a strong interest in the preservation of the integrity of Swiss law and sovereignty and in promoting respect by the United States of its international treaty obligations to Switzerland.

If the Court were to order UBS to produce evidence from Switzerland, and backed that order with coercive powers, the Court would be substituting its own authority for that of the competent Swiss authorities, and therefore would violate Swiss sovereignty and international law.

The Wall Street Journal reports that an IRS agent speaking at a financial conference in Miami confirms that more "John Doe" summonses are in the works.