He gave us some great insight below to the interviews of both potential judges and U.S. Attorneys. I will post the final list as soon as I hear it.
UPDATE -- Vanessa Blum has added to Dore's post below with her coverage of the last three interviews. I am very grateful to have such great guest bloggers... Thanks to both Vanessa and Dore.
One other tidbit about the interviews. Apparently, too many law clerks and interns attended the first day of interviews, so the Chief Judge sent this memo around yesterday afternoon:
I have been informed that many law clerks, interns and other employees have been coming in and out of the Judges' Conference Room in the Ferguson Courthouse where the Judicial Nominating Commission is conducting interviews. The Commission' s interviews are open, while their deliberations are not. However the room with 21 Commissioners and the applicant is extremely crowded to the point of possibly violating fire marshal regulations. Chairs had to be added for the public.The constant movement of observers detracts from the seriousness of the task and is somewhat disruptive. Although the Commision desires for an open process, an admirable goal, the large number of employees in one building is yielding heavy traffic. I would ask all employees, including interns and law clerks, as a courtesy , to take this into consideration and not attend this afternoon for the remaining judicial interviews or tomorrow for the US Attorney interviews. In the Summer many judges have a large number of interns and their interest in the process is understandable. The media covers it and we can all read about it the next day. However the comfort of the Commissioners and those being interviewed is also important. I thank you for your consideration. FAM
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, July 16, 2009
The US Attorney Interviews
This post has been updated at the bottom with Vanessa Blum's coverage of the last few interviews.
By Dore Louis:
The day started off with Mark Schnapp. He has a tremendous amount of experience over a very broad career.
Mr. Schnapp immediately noted that the role of a prosecutor should be to strike tough but fair blows. This ended up being a reoccurring theme throughout the day. As it turns out, Judge Gold's Order in the Shaygan case had a large impact on the proceedings -- every candidate was questioned on it, most more than once.
He noted his priorities as USA would be to prosecute 1) National Security matters, 2) Fraud and 3) Political Corruption cases.
A question that was asked of every candidate by the statewide chair was the following:
If you had to issue a letter grade to the office based on integrity and performance what would it be and 2) what are the three biggest problems with the office and how would you correct them?
Mr. Schnapp gave the office an A-, but later reduced it to a B after some tough questioning by Chairman Coffey. He listed the office problems as: 1) Training, 2) Supervision is lacking because the supervisors are spending too much time with large case loads and 3) Recruiting. I am not sure what he meant with 3, like em or not, our US Atty's office gets the top candidates in the country.
Justin Sayfie, who proved to be one of the more aggressive questioners yesterday, kept up the trend by asking a rather pointed question of all of the applicants. He referred to the Gold Order and asked each person if those facts are true, and a AUSA intentionally misled the court or violated a court order, would you do everything in your power to dismiss that person?
Mr. Schnapp first tried to side step the question by saying that he would first conduct an investigation - Sayfie countered by asking him to assume the facts are true and Schnapp finally said that if the investigation revealed the facts to be as given, he would terminate the prosecutors.
Jeff Sloman came next
Interestingly, Mr. Sloman said that one of the first things he would do would be to do away with the Ashcroft memo. I think the point was missed on a number of the committee members who do civil work and don't understand the significance of that policy. Fortunately, Mr. Coffey took a moment to stop and explain its impact to the committee.
Mr. Sloman gave the office a A. He noted that the most serious problem the office has is getting through the "Judge Gold matter" and that the whole thing has been tough on the prosecutors in the office. It was a tough position for him to be in. Clearly, Mr. Sloman has a different take on the Gold Order than many of the committee members do, and he was forced into a lose-lose situation. It was clear he is supportive of all of the prosecutors in the office and at the same time he was being asked to identify problems with the office and give a stance on what discipline may be appropriate given a hypothetical scenario that was being presented to him in terms of "assume the prosecutors did this or that." He did a good job of handling the questions and did not back down from his support of the office as a whole. Mr. Sloman flat out said that integrity and prosecutorial misconduct are not a problem in the office.
I think this may have hurt him with the committee. At one point the chairman asked another candidate a question premised on the statement: "If we think this office needs a shakeup...." To me it seemed clear that many on the committee did have that belief, at least their questions seemed to suggest they do.
Judge Ilona Homes was interesting to watch.
She was very thoughtful in her responses and had a distinct air of authority about her. She gave the office an "incomplete" on the grade question because she is an outsider and didn't feel it was fair to do without knowing more. She was the only candidate that did that.
In response to the "Sayfie Question" she said that if true, the prosecutors should not be in the office, but only after a full investigation has been completed -- in other words, not solely on the basis of the Gold Order.
Judge Holmes was questioned rather bluntly on a couple cases she has handled in Broward that involve accusations of heavy handedness by her from the bench. She did a great job handling the questions and after hearing her explain what happened, I would not expect those issues to play a role in the committee decision. The only caveat would be that there were so many qualified people before the committee that it may be easy for them to hold something against her that they should not otherwise, to make their decision easier.
Judge Trawick was great.
One of the things that really stood out to me was his clear love of our community. Along those lines, his focus would be on public corruption cases, gangs and violent crimes and medicare fraud.
The Judge gave the office a B, and said that he would improve 1) training, 2) the fulfilment of discovery obligations and 3) community relations. Without hesitation, the Judge responded to the Sayfie question by saying he would "absolutely" terminate an AUSA who willfully or intentionally mislead the court or violated a court order.
In my view, Richard Scruggs was one of the most impressive people that was interviewed.
I worked in the same office as the man and didn't have a clue as to any of his qualifications. The were extensive, including a ton of D.C. experience at main justice under the Reno administration.
Mr. Scruggs was strictly business and commanding. He said that under Stanley Marcus the office was an "A," but now it is a "C." he said he would 1) improve training, 2) instill the idea that being a prosecutor is a calling and is about being part of something bigger than winning or loosing, and 3) that he would reverse the "dumbing down" of cases that has gone on over the past 10 years and bring back a focus on big important matters rather than "low hanging" fruit. In response to the Sayfie question, Mr. Scruggs said "absolutely."
He said that he had no political goals in seeking the office and that he thought long and hard about it. He told a funny story about how he consulted with Judge Marcus prior to going forward with his application. The Judge asked him if he remembered the worst case of his career -- he said yes, Yahweh; the Judge then told him that it would be like that every night and day for four years.
Curtis Miner showed himself to be extremely likable and smart as a whip.
He gave the office a B+ and listed its biggest problems as being 1) bottom heavy, 2) that it needs more quality prosecutions and 3) -- I don't think he gave a third.
In response to Charmian Coffey's "shakeup" question, Mr. Miner said that if he concluded there is a problem with the culture or chain of supervision, he would shakeup the office, but that he believed it could be done without using a heavy hand.
It seemed to me that some of the committee members took issue with his lack of management experience. But the guy showed himself to be so capable, I would not count him out.
I came in about half way through Tom Mulvihill's interview.
He fought Mr. Sayfie on his question and refused to concede the facts in the order, but also said that a person who intentionally misleads a court or violates an order should not be an AUSA.
One thing he said that stood out was that the easiest thing to do as an AUSA is to sign an indictment, but that it is much harder to look at the agent on the other side and tell them to shut down their investigation. He seemed to be suggesting that with his experience and the respect he has from law enforcement agencies in the district, he could do that, and bring better more productive cases.
Another thing that he said that kind of made me laugh was that the Federal Rules provide for "extremely broad" discovery in criminal cases. Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on that one. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for broad discovery -- the criminal rules do not.
Lilian Sanchez
She did a good job handling the interview and held her ground on the questioning. She gave the office a B- and said that it could use some improved intelligent training -- not just CLE type stuff, but mentoring.
Ms. Sanchez felt that the past few years as a criminal defense lawyer have given her some perspective that she could bring to help the office improve in terms of its relationship with the defense bar and its discovery obligations.
She was also the only person to flat out say "no" to the Sayfie question. She said that she would find out where the breakdown in the office occurred and put policies in place to ensure that it did not happen again. She did note that if an AUSA intentionally violates DOJ policy, she would fire them, but it seemed clear to me that she did not view the hypo offered as that type of situation.
Dick Greggorie
He gave the office a B- and said the problems are 1) too many young prosecutors (they are very bright, but not enough experience), 2) Not enough focus on bringing larger cases, and 3) that there are leadership issues that could be addressed.
He suggested that he saw a problem with the manner in which the Gold Order was handled in the prior administration and said that as US Atty, he would be responsible for the conduct of his AUSAs. If that order had come down during his tenure as US Atty, he would not have "punted" the ball on the decision to appeal, but would have looked at the law and made the decision himself.
Unfortunately I missed the last two interviews of the day.
Overall, it was a very interesting process and removed some of the misgivings I have had in the past when I thought the process might be purely political. It was very apparent that the committee members took their jobs extremely seriously and asked tough and thoughtful questions. You could really tell that they are making a huge effort to put forth the best candidates.
I realize that much of this post focuses on negative points from the interviews -- all I can say is that that is the way the interviews went from my perspective. It seemed to me that the hypothetical idea that the committee might think the office needs a shakeup is not so hypothetical, and many of their questions, and the focus of the interviews were on that point.
On the positive side -- every candidate made clear how much they loved the job as AUSA and the people they worked with. Anybody who has worked with these people in the past should be proud of that fact, because they were given ample opportunity to criticize, and to a person they choose only to discuss how to improve the office.
UPDATE--
Hi all, Vanessa Blum here with some brief notes on the final three interviews of the day, starting with former AUSA David Buckner.
Mr. Buckner showed himself to be an incredibly poised and intelligent interviewee. If appointed, it seemed he would take a more hands-on approach than some other candidates. For instance, he said he would try at least one case in his first year. At the same time, he said his experience in private practice at Miami’s Kozyak Tropin and Throckmorton would give him fresh perspective if named U.S. attorney. Of interest, Mr. Buckner revealed that he prepared for appellate arguments in the Cuban spy case, even as his then infant daughter hospitalized. He scored the office at a B+ and said he would emphasize training, white collar prosecutions and public corruption investigations.
Next up, Wilfredo Ferrer, an assistant Dade County attorney and former federal prosecutor. Mr. Ferrer, who spent five years as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno, told the panel his experience at Main Justice would help him navigate the department’s vast bureaucracy and secure resources for the U.S. attorney’s office. Mr. Ferrer graded the office a “solid B+”, citing high turnover, leadership breakdowns related to the Gold Opinion, and resource shortages as major challenges. With just eight trials under his belt, he addressed concerns about his relative lack of courtroom experience and listed terrorism, fraud, violent crime and public corruption as his top priorities for the office.
The interviews concluded with James Swaim, executive asst. U.S. attorney and a 15-year veteran of the office. In his current post, Mr. Swaim manages administrative functions for the office and oversees community-based initiatives like Weed and Seed and Project Safe Neighborhoods. Mr. Swaim described himself as a low-key leader, “not a ranter and a raver.” “I don’t think that conveys strength,” he said. But outside the office, he said, he would be a forceful advocate for his troops. Mr. Swaim gave the office an A for integrity and a B for performance. When questioned further on the high mark for integrity, James said the actions of three lawyers out of nearly 300 shouldn’t bring down the score for the office as a whole. Though vague regarding his goals, he said he would seek to strengthen mentoring programs and give the U.S. attorney’s office a greater sense of mission.
Mr. Schnapp immediately noted that the role of a prosecutor should be to strike tough but fair blows. This ended up being a reoccurring theme throughout the day. As it turns out, Judge Gold's Order in the Shaygan case had a large impact on the proceedings -- every candidate was questioned on it, most more than once.
He noted his priorities as USA would be to prosecute 1) National Security matters, 2) Fraud and 3) Political Corruption cases.
A question that was asked of every candidate by the statewide chair was the following:
If you had to issue a letter grade to the office based on integrity and performance what would it be and 2) what are the three biggest problems with the office and how would you correct them?
Mr. Schnapp gave the office an A-, but later reduced it to a B after some tough questioning by Chairman Coffey. He listed the office problems as: 1) Training, 2) Supervision is lacking because the supervisors are spending too much time with large case loads and 3) Recruiting. I am not sure what he meant with 3, like em or not, our US Atty's office gets the top candidates in the country.
Justin Sayfie, who proved to be one of the more aggressive questioners yesterday, kept up the trend by asking a rather pointed question of all of the applicants. He referred to the Gold Order and asked each person if those facts are true, and a AUSA intentionally misled the court or violated a court order, would you do everything in your power to dismiss that person?
Mr. Schnapp first tried to side step the question by saying that he would first conduct an investigation - Sayfie countered by asking him to assume the facts are true and Schnapp finally said that if the investigation revealed the facts to be as given, he would terminate the prosecutors.
Jeff Sloman came next
Interestingly, Mr. Sloman said that one of the first things he would do would be to do away with the Ashcroft memo. I think the point was missed on a number of the committee members who do civil work and don't understand the significance of that policy. Fortunately, Mr. Coffey took a moment to stop and explain its impact to the committee.
Mr. Sloman gave the office a A. He noted that the most serious problem the office has is getting through the "Judge Gold matter" and that the whole thing has been tough on the prosecutors in the office. It was a tough position for him to be in. Clearly, Mr. Sloman has a different take on the Gold Order than many of the committee members do, and he was forced into a lose-lose situation. It was clear he is supportive of all of the prosecutors in the office and at the same time he was being asked to identify problems with the office and give a stance on what discipline may be appropriate given a hypothetical scenario that was being presented to him in terms of "assume the prosecutors did this or that." He did a good job of handling the questions and did not back down from his support of the office as a whole. Mr. Sloman flat out said that integrity and prosecutorial misconduct are not a problem in the office.
I think this may have hurt him with the committee. At one point the chairman asked another candidate a question premised on the statement: "If we think this office needs a shakeup...." To me it seemed clear that many on the committee did have that belief, at least their questions seemed to suggest they do.
Judge Ilona Homes was interesting to watch.
She was very thoughtful in her responses and had a distinct air of authority about her. She gave the office an "incomplete" on the grade question because she is an outsider and didn't feel it was fair to do without knowing more. She was the only candidate that did that.
In response to the "Sayfie Question" she said that if true, the prosecutors should not be in the office, but only after a full investigation has been completed -- in other words, not solely on the basis of the Gold Order.
Judge Holmes was questioned rather bluntly on a couple cases she has handled in Broward that involve accusations of heavy handedness by her from the bench. She did a great job handling the questions and after hearing her explain what happened, I would not expect those issues to play a role in the committee decision. The only caveat would be that there were so many qualified people before the committee that it may be easy for them to hold something against her that they should not otherwise, to make their decision easier.
Judge Trawick was great.
One of the things that really stood out to me was his clear love of our community. Along those lines, his focus would be on public corruption cases, gangs and violent crimes and medicare fraud.
The Judge gave the office a B, and said that he would improve 1) training, 2) the fulfilment of discovery obligations and 3) community relations. Without hesitation, the Judge responded to the Sayfie question by saying he would "absolutely" terminate an AUSA who willfully or intentionally mislead the court or violated a court order.
In my view, Richard Scruggs was one of the most impressive people that was interviewed.
I worked in the same office as the man and didn't have a clue as to any of his qualifications. The were extensive, including a ton of D.C. experience at main justice under the Reno administration.
Mr. Scruggs was strictly business and commanding. He said that under Stanley Marcus the office was an "A," but now it is a "C." he said he would 1) improve training, 2) instill the idea that being a prosecutor is a calling and is about being part of something bigger than winning or loosing, and 3) that he would reverse the "dumbing down" of cases that has gone on over the past 10 years and bring back a focus on big important matters rather than "low hanging" fruit. In response to the Sayfie question, Mr. Scruggs said "absolutely."
He said that he had no political goals in seeking the office and that he thought long and hard about it. He told a funny story about how he consulted with Judge Marcus prior to going forward with his application. The Judge asked him if he remembered the worst case of his career -- he said yes, Yahweh; the Judge then told him that it would be like that every night and day for four years.
Curtis Miner showed himself to be extremely likable and smart as a whip.
He gave the office a B+ and listed its biggest problems as being 1) bottom heavy, 2) that it needs more quality prosecutions and 3) -- I don't think he gave a third.
In response to Charmian Coffey's "shakeup" question, Mr. Miner said that if he concluded there is a problem with the culture or chain of supervision, he would shakeup the office, but that he believed it could be done without using a heavy hand.
It seemed to me that some of the committee members took issue with his lack of management experience. But the guy showed himself to be so capable, I would not count him out.
I came in about half way through Tom Mulvihill's interview.
He fought Mr. Sayfie on his question and refused to concede the facts in the order, but also said that a person who intentionally misleads a court or violates an order should not be an AUSA.
One thing he said that stood out was that the easiest thing to do as an AUSA is to sign an indictment, but that it is much harder to look at the agent on the other side and tell them to shut down their investigation. He seemed to be suggesting that with his experience and the respect he has from law enforcement agencies in the district, he could do that, and bring better more productive cases.
Another thing that he said that kind of made me laugh was that the Federal Rules provide for "extremely broad" discovery in criminal cases. Sorry, but I gotta disagree with you on that one. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide for broad discovery -- the criminal rules do not.
Lilian Sanchez
She did a good job handling the interview and held her ground on the questioning. She gave the office a B- and said that it could use some improved intelligent training -- not just CLE type stuff, but mentoring.
Ms. Sanchez felt that the past few years as a criminal defense lawyer have given her some perspective that she could bring to help the office improve in terms of its relationship with the defense bar and its discovery obligations.
She was also the only person to flat out say "no" to the Sayfie question. She said that she would find out where the breakdown in the office occurred and put policies in place to ensure that it did not happen again. She did note that if an AUSA intentionally violates DOJ policy, she would fire them, but it seemed clear to me that she did not view the hypo offered as that type of situation.
Dick Greggorie
He gave the office a B- and said the problems are 1) too many young prosecutors (they are very bright, but not enough experience), 2) Not enough focus on bringing larger cases, and 3) that there are leadership issues that could be addressed.
He suggested that he saw a problem with the manner in which the Gold Order was handled in the prior administration and said that as US Atty, he would be responsible for the conduct of his AUSAs. If that order had come down during his tenure as US Atty, he would not have "punted" the ball on the decision to appeal, but would have looked at the law and made the decision himself.
Unfortunately I missed the last two interviews of the day.
Overall, it was a very interesting process and removed some of the misgivings I have had in the past when I thought the process might be purely political. It was very apparent that the committee members took their jobs extremely seriously and asked tough and thoughtful questions. You could really tell that they are making a huge effort to put forth the best candidates.
I realize that much of this post focuses on negative points from the interviews -- all I can say is that that is the way the interviews went from my perspective. It seemed to me that the hypothetical idea that the committee might think the office needs a shakeup is not so hypothetical, and many of their questions, and the focus of the interviews were on that point.
On the positive side -- every candidate made clear how much they loved the job as AUSA and the people they worked with. Anybody who has worked with these people in the past should be proud of that fact, because they were given ample opportunity to criticize, and to a person they choose only to discuss how to improve the office.
UPDATE--
Hi all, Vanessa Blum here with some brief notes on the final three interviews of the day, starting with former AUSA David Buckner.
Mr. Buckner showed himself to be an incredibly poised and intelligent interviewee. If appointed, it seemed he would take a more hands-on approach than some other candidates. For instance, he said he would try at least one case in his first year. At the same time, he said his experience in private practice at Miami’s Kozyak Tropin and Throckmorton would give him fresh perspective if named U.S. attorney. Of interest, Mr. Buckner revealed that he prepared for appellate arguments in the Cuban spy case, even as his then infant daughter hospitalized. He scored the office at a B+ and said he would emphasize training, white collar prosecutions and public corruption investigations.
Next up, Wilfredo Ferrer, an assistant Dade County attorney and former federal prosecutor. Mr. Ferrer, who spent five years as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno, told the panel his experience at Main Justice would help him navigate the department’s vast bureaucracy and secure resources for the U.S. attorney’s office. Mr. Ferrer graded the office a “solid B+”, citing high turnover, leadership breakdowns related to the Gold Opinion, and resource shortages as major challenges. With just eight trials under his belt, he addressed concerns about his relative lack of courtroom experience and listed terrorism, fraud, violent crime and public corruption as his top priorities for the office.
The interviews concluded with James Swaim, executive asst. U.S. attorney and a 15-year veteran of the office. In his current post, Mr. Swaim manages administrative functions for the office and oversees community-based initiatives like Weed and Seed and Project Safe Neighborhoods. Mr. Swaim described himself as a low-key leader, “not a ranter and a raver.” “I don’t think that conveys strength,” he said. But outside the office, he said, he would be a forceful advocate for his troops. Mr. Swaim gave the office an A for integrity and a B for performance. When questioned further on the high mark for integrity, James said the actions of three lawyers out of nearly 300 shouldn’t bring down the score for the office as a whole. Though vague regarding his goals, he said he would seek to strengthen mentoring programs and give the U.S. attorney’s office a greater sense of mission.
US Atty Interveiws
Sorry I didn't do the lunch postings, but I did not have time. I am typing it up now. Overall, the interviews had a very different feel than the judicial interviews. Where those were extremely polite but not overly probing, the US Atty interviews were in depth and at times confrontational. More in a few minutes.
One great thing that happened was the Chief Judge showing up with a small plate full of small cups and fresh cup of CUBAN COFFEE for the committee. It was nice to see him bring it in.
One great thing that happened was the Chief Judge showing up with a small plate full of small cups and fresh cup of CUBAN COFFEE for the committee. It was nice to see him bring it in.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
BREAKING -- SHORT LIST ANNOUNCED FOR FEDERAL JUDGE
That was fast -- the list is out:
Kathy Williams
Jerald Bagley
Robert Scola
Congrats to those three.
Tomorrow, we'll find out who makes the U.S. Attorney short list.
Kathy Williams
Jerald Bagley
Robert Scola
Congrats to those three.
Tomorrow, we'll find out who makes the U.S. Attorney short list.
JNC interviews & Guest Blogging
Just wanted to give a shout out to Dore Louis for guest-blogging the interviews today. His posts are below. Thank you Dore. The DBR is also covering the interviews on its blog.
I'm hoping Dore can give us more insightful coverage tomorrow of the U.S. Attorney interviews. We may also get Vanessa Blum to guest blog tomorrow...
Thanks all. --dom
I'm hoping Dore can give us more insightful coverage tomorrow of the U.S. Attorney interviews. We may also get Vanessa Blum to guest blog tomorrow...
Thanks all. --dom
Afternoon Interviews
I missed Robert Lee's interview and came in about half way through Judge Barzee's.
Judge Barzee was on top of the interview, pure and simple. She was asked a couple tough questions and did a great job fielding them. One in particular was how she would prioritize the following three traits in determining who is a great judge: Temperament, Fairness and Courage. At first Judge Barzee said that she would list all three under the category of Humility, and that humility is the most important trait. Justin Sayfie (who has proven to be one of the more vocal and aggressive questioners) felt that she had not answered the question and pushed for a ranking -- the Judge ranked them (1) Fairness, (2) Temperament and (3) Courage. Who can disagree with that?
More so than any applicant I saw interviewed, Judge Barzee appeared to have a conversation with the committee members, rather than an interview.
Judge Gayles came next,
It seemed to me that Judge Gayles faced a bit of an uphill battle with the committee because of his youth and his position as a County Court Judge. Many questions focused on his readiness to become a district court judge. His response was to point out that Judges Huck, Jordan, Seitz, Middlebrooks and Martinez had never been on the bench before being appointed.
Patricia Lowry:
If Judge Gayle's obstacle with the committee was his youth, Ms. Lowery's appeared to be the fact she is not on the bench (not to suggest she looked old -- she did not). Here is a eminently qualified individual, who is at the top of her profession, and I felt the like the committee honed in on the fact that she is not a judge. I wish they would have asked her some questions that brought out her qualifications based on her big law experience.
Another issue that was raised, was something relating to 28 U.S.C. s. 458. Apparently Ms. Lowry is married to a magistrate judge and one of the committee members seemed to suggest the above referenced statute somehow disqualified her from appointment. Were that really the case, one has to wonder why they would have interviewed her.
Kathy Williams:
Equally, or possibly more so then Judge Rosenbaum, Kathy Williams' opening remarks were thoughtful, prepared and on point. To understand Ms. Williams' interview, you have to have a bit of an appreciation for the setting --
The interviews are being conducted in the judge's conference room in the new courthouse. The room is triangularly shaped and there are huge windows on the longer walls. The room has an enormous conference table in the middle with all the members scrunched in, and the interviewee sits on one end by herself. There is some limited spectator seating, perhaps 15 - 20 seats in total, which for much of the day was adequate. When Kathy Williams was interviewed, the place was overflowing with clerks from what seemed like every chamber in the building.
The committee didn't seem to me to be interested whatsoever in whether or not Kathy Williams is qualified to be a district judge, the answer was clearly known by all of them, they seemed only to want to assure themselves that if given the spot, Ms. Williams would be fair to all sides.
One of the funnier points came when Ms. Williams was asked which judge's in the Southern District she admires -- looking up at the room stacked with law clerks, she smiled and said 'hello clerks' and proceeded to identify Judges Markus, Barkett and Dan Pearson. Seeing the way that committee treated Ms. Williams and the way she fielded their questions would make anybody who has any connection to her, even if it is like me by simply being on the CJA panel, proud as hell to have seen her interview.
It was clear that many people contacted the committee members on behalf of Kathy Williams, and had glowing things to say. Ms. Williams took the time during her closing remarks to give what was clearly a very heartfelt thanks to all of them.
Judge Lopez:
Not much to say about the Judge's interview, nobody was questioning his qualifications to sit as a district judge; he carried a genuine air of effortless authority throughout the interview.
Judge Scola:
The committee seemed in awe of Kathy Williams, the committee had a great conversation with Judge Barzee, but with Judge Scola, the committee was completely at ease and relaxed.
Judge Scola was self effacing and demonstrated his quick wit. One of the funniest points was when one of the committee members pointed out that he was on the JNC that sent Judge Scola's name to the governor when the Judge was appointed to circuit court. The judge immediately responded that he is not a superstitious person, but that for some reason he is wearing the same tie today that he did during that interview in 1995! At another point, Georgina Angones said that she had heard so many good things from people about Judge Scola, and asked what Judge Scola thought about the fact that they all ended by saying they would hate to lose him as a circuit judge. Steve Zack quickly said, I'll answer that for you, turned to Ms. Angones and said "get another circuit judge!" Another committee member said he played on the same baseball team as Judge Scola at some point and asked the Judge to confirm that he was a really good player...the Judge smiled, rolled his eyes, looked up and said, 'of course, you were incredible.'
On judicial philosophy, the Judge echoed the sentiment that was expressed by others who are or were trial lawyers like Judge Barzee, and Kathy Williams, that a judge should not inject themselves into a trial, but should allow the lawyers to do their jobs.
Overall, I must say that the process was intense, and very interesting to watch. I encourage you all to go watch the US Atty interviews tomorrow, if you cannot, I will be there and will do my best to let you know what happens.
More so than any applicant I saw interviewed, Judge Barzee appeared to have a conversation with the committee members, rather than an interview.
Judge Gayles came next,
It seemed to me that Judge Gayles faced a bit of an uphill battle with the committee because of his youth and his position as a County Court Judge. Many questions focused on his readiness to become a district court judge. His response was to point out that Judges Huck, Jordan, Seitz, Middlebrooks and Martinez had never been on the bench before being appointed.
Patricia Lowry:
If Judge Gayle's obstacle with the committee was his youth, Ms. Lowery's appeared to be the fact she is not on the bench (not to suggest she looked old -- she did not). Here is a eminently qualified individual, who is at the top of her profession, and I felt the like the committee honed in on the fact that she is not a judge. I wish they would have asked her some questions that brought out her qualifications based on her big law experience.
Another issue that was raised, was something relating to 28 U.S.C. s. 458. Apparently Ms. Lowry is married to a magistrate judge and one of the committee members seemed to suggest the above referenced statute somehow disqualified her from appointment. Were that really the case, one has to wonder why they would have interviewed her.
Kathy Williams:
Equally, or possibly more so then Judge Rosenbaum, Kathy Williams' opening remarks were thoughtful, prepared and on point. To understand Ms. Williams' interview, you have to have a bit of an appreciation for the setting --
The interviews are being conducted in the judge's conference room in the new courthouse. The room is triangularly shaped and there are huge windows on the longer walls. The room has an enormous conference table in the middle with all the members scrunched in, and the interviewee sits on one end by herself. There is some limited spectator seating, perhaps 15 - 20 seats in total, which for much of the day was adequate. When Kathy Williams was interviewed, the place was overflowing with clerks from what seemed like every chamber in the building.
The committee didn't seem to me to be interested whatsoever in whether or not Kathy Williams is qualified to be a district judge, the answer was clearly known by all of them, they seemed only to want to assure themselves that if given the spot, Ms. Williams would be fair to all sides.
One of the funnier points came when Ms. Williams was asked which judge's in the Southern District she admires -- looking up at the room stacked with law clerks, she smiled and said 'hello clerks' and proceeded to identify Judges Markus, Barkett and Dan Pearson. Seeing the way that committee treated Ms. Williams and the way she fielded their questions would make anybody who has any connection to her, even if it is like me by simply being on the CJA panel, proud as hell to have seen her interview.
It was clear that many people contacted the committee members on behalf of Kathy Williams, and had glowing things to say. Ms. Williams took the time during her closing remarks to give what was clearly a very heartfelt thanks to all of them.
Judge Lopez:
Not much to say about the Judge's interview, nobody was questioning his qualifications to sit as a district judge; he carried a genuine air of effortless authority throughout the interview.
Judge Scola:
The committee seemed in awe of Kathy Williams, the committee had a great conversation with Judge Barzee, but with Judge Scola, the committee was completely at ease and relaxed.
Judge Scola was self effacing and demonstrated his quick wit. One of the funniest points was when one of the committee members pointed out that he was on the JNC that sent Judge Scola's name to the governor when the Judge was appointed to circuit court. The judge immediately responded that he is not a superstitious person, but that for some reason he is wearing the same tie today that he did during that interview in 1995! At another point, Georgina Angones said that she had heard so many good things from people about Judge Scola, and asked what Judge Scola thought about the fact that they all ended by saying they would hate to lose him as a circuit judge. Steve Zack quickly said, I'll answer that for you, turned to Ms. Angones and said "get another circuit judge!" Another committee member said he played on the same baseball team as Judge Scola at some point and asked the Judge to confirm that he was a really good player...the Judge smiled, rolled his eyes, looked up and said, 'of course, you were incredible.'
On judicial philosophy, the Judge echoed the sentiment that was expressed by others who are or were trial lawyers like Judge Barzee, and Kathy Williams, that a judge should not inject themselves into a trial, but should allow the lawyers to do their jobs.
Overall, I must say that the process was intense, and very interesting to watch. I encourage you all to go watch the US Atty interviews tomorrow, if you cannot, I will be there and will do my best to let you know what happens.
Morning Interviews
The morning interviews got off to a fast start. Judge Rosenbaum's opening remarks were extremely well thought out and prepared. She clearly captured the committee during her initial presentation.
Some of the committee member's questions were in depth, and others were not very deep. In all, during the course of the 20 minutes or so of questioning, there were good exchanges and you certainly got a feel for the interviewee.
One of the more interesting questions that has come up with a number of the interviewees has been asked by Justin Sayfie -- essentially, the question is whether the interviewee has seen a situation where the law dictates a result that the candidate deems to be unjust and morally wrong. Most of the canidates I saw (I missed Caroline Heck Miller and Judith Korchin's interveiws) stressed the importance of stare decisis and adhearance to the rule of law. Personally, I think there may have been a bit of a missed oportunity to recall the building that they are being interviewed in, and a quote attributed to that great judge who has been cited has having said that "in the Moral Universe, One Is A Majority If Your're Right." Judge Bagley had the most interesting response to it when he noted that he has come upon that situation in his career as a jurist and he tried to frame the issue for the appeallate court -- he was reversed.
Here are some highlights from the interviews I saw:
Judge Rosenbaum:
Judge Roesnbaum stressed the role of a prosecutor is not to obtain convictions, but rather "to do the right thing." I appreciated that, having come from the State Attorney's Office.
Judge Seltzer:
Judge Seltzer was asked by the committee members how the Chief Magistrate Judge is picked (he is next up and Judge Brown is the current Chief). The Judge told the committee that it is by seniority and that he and Judge Brown were sworn in on the same day, but at their judicial swearing in, he said 'Steve, you go first,' and here we are. Judge Seltzer also affirmed his respect for the role of voir dire and said that he beleives the sides should get thirty mintues in selecting a jury.
Judge Bagley:
Unfortunately I missed Judge Bagley's opening remarks, but sitting in the room, you cannot miss that which is obvious to anybody who has appeared in his courtroom -- a calmness and demanor that commands the attention of all present. He was in absolute control of the entire interveiw and it was impressive to watch. When asked what his weakness was, the Judge directly addressed his lack of federal experiance and assured the committee that that fact would not effect his ability to be a federal judge. Nobody present would have doubted him. Judge Bagley also tipped the committee off to what motivated him to enter the law:
The Judge was a student in New York and recieved a summons to appear through the mail for a marijuana charge -- the summons was issued in his legal name, but he was not the right guy...somebody had apparently used his name. When he appeared in court, he was intimidated and frightened. He explained to the presiding judge that he was not right defendant. Luckily for Judge Bagley the police officer who had issued the summons was there and affirmed that he was not the proper defendant. This experiance, more than any other showed Judge Bagley the fairness in the law and led to the launch of his legal career.
Judge White:
By the time Judge White appeared, the committee room was rather full of spectators and I could not hear him very well. I did catch his emphasis on judicial temperment and patience as qualities that he believes are extemely important. Judge White also made a statement that I loved - he said that because of the power that a prosecutor holds, a good prosecutor is the best public defender. Absolutely true.
Well, back to the interveiws, I will post more later.
Some of the committee member's questions were in depth, and others were not very deep. In all, during the course of the 20 minutes or so of questioning, there were good exchanges and you certainly got a feel for the interviewee.
One of the more interesting questions that has come up with a number of the interviewees has been asked by Justin Sayfie -- essentially, the question is whether the interviewee has seen a situation where the law dictates a result that the candidate deems to be unjust and morally wrong. Most of the canidates I saw (I missed Caroline Heck Miller and Judith Korchin's interveiws) stressed the importance of stare decisis and adhearance to the rule of law. Personally, I think there may have been a bit of a missed oportunity to recall the building that they are being interviewed in, and a quote attributed to that great judge who has been cited has having said that "in the Moral Universe, One Is A Majority If Your're Right." Judge Bagley had the most interesting response to it when he noted that he has come upon that situation in his career as a jurist and he tried to frame the issue for the appeallate court -- he was reversed.
Here are some highlights from the interviews I saw:
Judge Rosenbaum:
Judge Roesnbaum stressed the role of a prosecutor is not to obtain convictions, but rather "to do the right thing." I appreciated that, having come from the State Attorney's Office.
Judge Seltzer:
Judge Seltzer was asked by the committee members how the Chief Magistrate Judge is picked (he is next up and Judge Brown is the current Chief). The Judge told the committee that it is by seniority and that he and Judge Brown were sworn in on the same day, but at their judicial swearing in, he said 'Steve, you go first,' and here we are. Judge Seltzer also affirmed his respect for the role of voir dire and said that he beleives the sides should get thirty mintues in selecting a jury.
Judge Bagley:
Unfortunately I missed Judge Bagley's opening remarks, but sitting in the room, you cannot miss that which is obvious to anybody who has appeared in his courtroom -- a calmness and demanor that commands the attention of all present. He was in absolute control of the entire interveiw and it was impressive to watch. When asked what his weakness was, the Judge directly addressed his lack of federal experiance and assured the committee that that fact would not effect his ability to be a federal judge. Nobody present would have doubted him. Judge Bagley also tipped the committee off to what motivated him to enter the law:
The Judge was a student in New York and recieved a summons to appear through the mail for a marijuana charge -- the summons was issued in his legal name, but he was not the right guy...somebody had apparently used his name. When he appeared in court, he was intimidated and frightened. He explained to the presiding judge that he was not right defendant. Luckily for Judge Bagley the police officer who had issued the summons was there and affirmed that he was not the proper defendant. This experiance, more than any other showed Judge Bagley the fairness in the law and led to the launch of his legal career.
Judge White:
By the time Judge White appeared, the committee room was rather full of spectators and I could not hear him very well. I did catch his emphasis on judicial temperment and patience as qualities that he believes are extemely important. Judge White also made a statement that I loved - he said that because of the power that a prosecutor holds, a good prosecutor is the best public defender. Absolutely true.
Well, back to the interveiws, I will post more later.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Guest Blogger Here
David is in trial before Judge Jordan and is unable to cover the District Court interviews tomorrow. I will be guest blogging for David. Unfortunately, I will have to miss several of the morning interviews and am hoping somebody else will provide information on the ones I cannot attend.
Here is the list of the interviewees and their timeslots:
Here is the list of the interviewees and their timeslots:
- Robin S. Rosenbaum 9:00
- Barry S. Seltzer 9:30
- Judith M. Korchin 10:00
- Caroline Heck Miller 10:30
- Jerald Bagley 11:00
- Patrick A. White 11:30
- Robert W. Lee 12:30
- Mary Barzee Flores 1:00
- Darrin P. Gayles 1:30
- Patricia E. Lowry 2:00
- Kathleen M. Williams 2:30
- Peter R. Lopez 3:00
- Robert N. Scola, Jr. 3:30
- Gerald B. Cope, Jr. 4:00
- Ana Maria Martinez 4:30
I cannot help but wonder whether to not a 25-minute interview, even with the huge written application involved, is sufficient to determine which of these 15 individuals should get the job. It will be interesting to hear the committee’s questions and the remarks by the applicants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)