...this time in the Court of Appeals (the 9th Circuit -- here's the opinion). From Reuters:
The celebrity and heiress Paris Hilton may pursue her lawsuit against Hallmark Cards over its use of her picture and catchphrase "That's hot" on a greeting card, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.
Hilton had contended that Hallmark violated her privacy and right of publicity by ripping off a scene from her reality TV show "The Simple Life" on a birthday card captioned "Paris's First Day as a Waitress."
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Hallmark's argument that its depiction of the Hilton Hotels heiress was protected speech as a matter of law.
It sent the case back to a lower court, which had turned aside Hilton's claim of trademark infringement but rejected other Hallmark defenses.
Paris is now 2-0 in federal court... That's huge:
Hat tip: my commentors and WSJ Law Blog.
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, September 01, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
Lyglenson Lemorin still sits in immigration jail
From Jay Weaver's article in today's Miami Herald:
A Tampa engineering student acquitted of terrorism-related charges walked out of an immigration court a free man earlier this month, after a judge rejected the U.S. government's bid to deport him to his native Egypt on identical charges.
Yet the same immigration judge sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers last year when he ordered the removal of a Miami man to his native Haiti after he had been acquitted of terror-conspiracy charges.
Why did the immigration judge, Kenneth Hurewitz, grant the release of Youssef Megahed yet order the deportation of Lyglenson Lemorin? The lawyer who represented both men says it's because the evidence was stronger in the Lemorin case, though he disputes it was enough to deport him.
``The government's lawyers misunderstood that every case is different and you must plead what you're going to prove,'' Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney, said of the Megahed case. ``They failed to do that.''
Kuck said he believes Lemorin -- one of the so-called Liberty City Seven defendants -- has a good shot at his appeal, which will be considered this fall. Lemorin, 34, remains in custody.
Both Megahed and Lemorin are legal U.S. residents with no criminal histories who have lived in this country for years. Both also experienced a rare kind of ``double jeopardy'' -- being charged a second time in immigration court following acquittals in federal court.
Megahed, a 23-year-old former student at the University of South Florida, was arrested on a 2007 road trip in South Carolina along with a fellow classmate, Ahmed Mohamed. Both were charged with transporting explosives after police found model rocket propellants in the car's trunk.
Mohamed was also charged with providing ``material support'' for terrorism, because he created a You Tube video that showed how to convert a remote control toy vehicle into a bomb. He pleaded guilty to that charge last spring.
In early April, Megahed was acquitted in Tampa federal court on the explosives charges after his defense attorney argued that the materials found in the trunk -- PVC pipe and chemicals -- were homemade fireworks.
But a few days later, Megahed, while leaving a Wal-Mart store with his father, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. He was charged again with the same terrorism-related explosives offense, only this time in immigration court, which is part of the Justice Department and has a lower standard of proof.
Megahed, who has lived in the United States since he was 11, faced deportation. His family, the Muslim community and others -- including four jurors in his criminal case -- expressed outrage.
They should be outraged. I'm sorry but if you are acquitted in federal court, immigration shouldn't be able to recharge you with the same conduct and be able to deport you based on a lower standard of proof. My prior coverage on this issue is here.
A Tampa engineering student acquitted of terrorism-related charges walked out of an immigration court a free man earlier this month, after a judge rejected the U.S. government's bid to deport him to his native Egypt on identical charges.
Yet the same immigration judge sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers last year when he ordered the removal of a Miami man to his native Haiti after he had been acquitted of terror-conspiracy charges.
Why did the immigration judge, Kenneth Hurewitz, grant the release of Youssef Megahed yet order the deportation of Lyglenson Lemorin? The lawyer who represented both men says it's because the evidence was stronger in the Lemorin case, though he disputes it was enough to deport him.
``The government's lawyers misunderstood that every case is different and you must plead what you're going to prove,'' Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney, said of the Megahed case. ``They failed to do that.''
Kuck said he believes Lemorin -- one of the so-called Liberty City Seven defendants -- has a good shot at his appeal, which will be considered this fall. Lemorin, 34, remains in custody.
Both Megahed and Lemorin are legal U.S. residents with no criminal histories who have lived in this country for years. Both also experienced a rare kind of ``double jeopardy'' -- being charged a second time in immigration court following acquittals in federal court.
Megahed, a 23-year-old former student at the University of South Florida, was arrested on a 2007 road trip in South Carolina along with a fellow classmate, Ahmed Mohamed. Both were charged with transporting explosives after police found model rocket propellants in the car's trunk.
Mohamed was also charged with providing ``material support'' for terrorism, because he created a You Tube video that showed how to convert a remote control toy vehicle into a bomb. He pleaded guilty to that charge last spring.
In early April, Megahed was acquitted in Tampa federal court on the explosives charges after his defense attorney argued that the materials found in the trunk -- PVC pipe and chemicals -- were homemade fireworks.
But a few days later, Megahed, while leaving a Wal-Mart store with his father, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. He was charged again with the same terrorism-related explosives offense, only this time in immigration court, which is part of the Justice Department and has a lower standard of proof.
Megahed, who has lived in the United States since he was 11, faced deportation. His family, the Muslim community and others -- including four jurors in his criminal case -- expressed outrage.
They should be outraged. I'm sorry but if you are acquitted in federal court, immigration shouldn't be able to recharge you with the same conduct and be able to deport you based on a lower standard of proof. My prior coverage on this issue is here.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
"Gov. Charlie Crist and ex-aide George LeMieux cleared in federal probe"
That's the headline from Jay Weaver's story about the Mutual Benefits case, which keeps taking stranger and stranger turns:
Gov. Charlie Crist and former chief of staff George LeMieux -- the subjects of a federal public corruption investigation -- have been cleared of allegations that they tried to thwart a state criminal probe into a Fort Lauderdale insurance company, according to sources familiar with the ongoing case.
Crist's selection of LeMieux to replace U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez would not have been possible had LeMieux still been under scrutiny by federal prosecutors investigating alleged influence-peddling by Mutual Benefits and its former top executive.
LeMieux was in the cross-hairs of the investigation after a major Republican fundraiser working with the FBI made a secretly recorded phone call to LeMieux at the governor's office in 2007, trying to get LeMieux to implicate himself, sources said.
Our prior coverage of the case and all the secrecy and failed snitching and set-ups is here. It's really amazing to me that the government would rely on criminals to try and set up well-respected and law-abiding citizens without real proof. LeMieux did the right thing:
But the phone call backfired: LeMieux immediately reported it to Crist's general counsel, who called the FBI. Still, LeMieux remained under investigation through much of 2008, along with Crist and several other members of his inner circle from his tenure as Florida attorney general and then as governor.
Gov. Charlie Crist and former chief of staff George LeMieux -- the subjects of a federal public corruption investigation -- have been cleared of allegations that they tried to thwart a state criminal probe into a Fort Lauderdale insurance company, according to sources familiar with the ongoing case.
Crist's selection of LeMieux to replace U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez would not have been possible had LeMieux still been under scrutiny by federal prosecutors investigating alleged influence-peddling by Mutual Benefits and its former top executive.
LeMieux was in the cross-hairs of the investigation after a major Republican fundraiser working with the FBI made a secretly recorded phone call to LeMieux at the governor's office in 2007, trying to get LeMieux to implicate himself, sources said.
Our prior coverage of the case and all the secrecy and failed snitching and set-ups is here. It's really amazing to me that the government would rely on criminals to try and set up well-respected and law-abiding citizens without real proof. LeMieux did the right thing:
But the phone call backfired: LeMieux immediately reported it to Crist's general counsel, who called the FBI. Still, LeMieux remained under investigation through much of 2008, along with Crist and several other members of his inner circle from his tenure as Florida attorney general and then as governor.
Friday, August 28, 2009
News & Notes (the PD's edition)
1. Paul Rashkind has been working on Guantanamo cases and he just got a nice win in DC: hearsay is not admissible in the detainee cases. Here's SCOTUSBlog's coverage:
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton went further than any of his District Court colleagues has gone in cutting back on the Pentagon’s option of proving its detention cases by using a kind of evidence that normally would not be allowed in court — hearsay, as a substitute for direct proof of facts. The judge refused to follow the government’s plea that all of its hearsay evidence about an individual detainee should have a special rank, admitted into court with a presumption that it was reliable unless detainees’ lawyers could show it was not.
Judge Walton’s 12-page order outlining a “framework” for processing government offers of hearsay evidence can be downloaded here.
2. The Federal Defenders are participating in the Race for the Cure of breast cancer this October. If you want to help out, see here. (I fixed the link)
3. Interviews for the U.S. Attorney slot and the District Court slot will happen next Wednesday, September 2. Unfortunately, they are not open to the public.
4. One of the judicial candidates, FPD Kathy Williams, is receiving UM's Lawyers in Leadership Award, which recognizes “dedication to public citizenship and leadership.” Rick Bascuas covers it here.
5. Miami officer pocketed Crime Stoppers reward cash (via Miami Herald). To keep up the PD theme, I'm sure a PD got assigned to one of the defendants in the case.
Here's a great scene from My Cousin Vinny to get you to your weekend. Check out the PD's opening at the 4:45 mark...
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton went further than any of his District Court colleagues has gone in cutting back on the Pentagon’s option of proving its detention cases by using a kind of evidence that normally would not be allowed in court — hearsay, as a substitute for direct proof of facts. The judge refused to follow the government’s plea that all of its hearsay evidence about an individual detainee should have a special rank, admitted into court with a presumption that it was reliable unless detainees’ lawyers could show it was not.
Judge Walton’s 12-page order outlining a “framework” for processing government offers of hearsay evidence can be downloaded here.
2. The Federal Defenders are participating in the Race for the Cure of breast cancer this October. If you want to help out, see here. (I fixed the link)
3. Interviews for the U.S. Attorney slot and the District Court slot will happen next Wednesday, September 2. Unfortunately, they are not open to the public.
4. One of the judicial candidates, FPD Kathy Williams, is receiving UM's Lawyers in Leadership Award, which recognizes “dedication to public citizenship and leadership.” Rick Bascuas covers it here.
5. Miami officer pocketed Crime Stoppers reward cash (via Miami Herald). To keep up the PD theme, I'm sure a PD got assigned to one of the defendants in the case.
Here's a great scene from My Cousin Vinny to get you to your weekend. Check out the PD's opening at the 4:45 mark...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Judge Kozinski champions right to privacy in computers
The Fourth Amendment is not dead... at least in the Ninth Circuit. Judge Alex Kozinksi,* writing for an en banc Ninth Circuit, ruled that many additional safeguards must be put in place before a computer search can go forward. See United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing. Here's the summary of the holding by Kozinski:
When the government wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. See p. 11876 supra.
2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. See pp. 11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant.
3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87 supra.
4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.
5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.
My former law-school classmate, Professor Orin Kerr, has been railing on the decision over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Professor Kerr calls the opinion "breathtaking"** and says that it is light on citations to authority. He goes so far as to say: "This is the most free-wheeling, 'look ma no hands' legal decision I've read in a long time."
I think Kerr has got it all wrong here and that the en banc 9th Circuit has got it right. Computer searches are inherently different than any other type of search. And by the very nature of the search, a search warrant for any type of digital information -- no matter how discreet -- will lead to a search of the entire computer. Nowadays, there is nothing more private than a computer, not even your home. The old 4th Amendment analysis plainly hasn't been working with searching computers. And finally, one court had the courage to say so.
I know this isn't Scalia-Dershowitz, but I challenge my old friend Orin to a debate on whether this case was correctly decided. We can do it in blog posts or email or whatever. I hope he accepts. My first question to the good professor is whether he would agree that computer searches are inherently different than any other kind of search.
*Isn't it interesting that Kozinski wrote this opinion. Remember that he's the guy who had the contents of his computer publicly disclosed.
**Interestingly, the same word was used to describe the government's position: "Judge Thomas, too, in his panel dissent, expressed frustration withthe government’s conduct and position, calling it a 'breath-taking expansion of the ‘plain view’ doctrine, which clearly has no application to intermingled private electronic data.' Comprehensive Drug Testing, 513 F.3d at 1117."
When the government wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. See p. 11876 supra.
2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. See pp. 11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant.
3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87 supra.
4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.
5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.
My former law-school classmate, Professor Orin Kerr, has been railing on the decision over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Professor Kerr calls the opinion "breathtaking"** and says that it is light on citations to authority. He goes so far as to say: "This is the most free-wheeling, 'look ma no hands' legal decision I've read in a long time."
I think Kerr has got it all wrong here and that the en banc 9th Circuit has got it right. Computer searches are inherently different than any other type of search. And by the very nature of the search, a search warrant for any type of digital information -- no matter how discreet -- will lead to a search of the entire computer. Nowadays, there is nothing more private than a computer, not even your home. The old 4th Amendment analysis plainly hasn't been working with searching computers. And finally, one court had the courage to say so.
I know this isn't Scalia-Dershowitz, but I challenge my old friend Orin to a debate on whether this case was correctly decided. We can do it in blog posts or email or whatever. I hope he accepts. My first question to the good professor is whether he would agree that computer searches are inherently different than any other kind of search.
*Isn't it interesting that Kozinski wrote this opinion. Remember that he's the guy who had the contents of his computer publicly disclosed.
**Interestingly, the same word was used to describe the government's position: "Judge Thomas, too, in his panel dissent, expressed frustration withthe government’s conduct and position, calling it a 'breath-taking expansion of the ‘plain view’ doctrine, which clearly has no application to intermingled private electronic data.' Comprehensive Drug Testing, 513 F.3d at 1117."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
$$$$
Today's DBR covers the net worth of state court judges and their spouses. No surprise that former AUSA John Schlesinger tops the list as his wife Marilyn Milian is the judge of "The People's Court." But does Billy Shields have a man-crush on Schlesinger (not that there's anything wrong with that)... From the intro to the article:
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge John Schlesinger looks like he could play a judge on TV. Good looking, with a full shock of iron-gray hair and a granite jaw, Schlesinger is telegenic. But it’s his wife, Marilyn Milian of “The People’s Court,” who’s the television judge, and that helps explain why Schlesinger reported a net worth of $7.18 million, including a $2.7 million Coral Gables home, $1.8 million in the bank and a $95,000 Aston Martin sports car.
So DBR peeps, is the federal judge list coming next?
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge John Schlesinger looks like he could play a judge on TV. Good looking, with a full shock of iron-gray hair and a granite jaw, Schlesinger is telegenic. But it’s his wife, Marilyn Milian of “The People’s Court,” who’s the television judge, and that helps explain why Schlesinger reported a net worth of $7.18 million, including a $2.7 million Coral Gables home, $1.8 million in the bank and a $95,000 Aston Martin sports car.
So DBR peeps, is the federal judge list coming next?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Should judges reject agreed to plea agreements?
We've discussed this issue many times on this blog. If two parties in the adversary system work out a deal, should the judge be able to reject it? (Along the same lines, should a judge be able to reject a civil settlement?) I think the answer is clearly no for reasons I've articulated before.
The issue has come up again, this time out of the district. This time some (alleged?) crooked judges agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a particular sentence agreed to by the prosecutor. The federal judge rejected the deal in this order, in part because of the "scandalous conduct" of the judges.
What say you, readers? Are you persuaded by the court's reasoning? Should judges be permitted to reject the deals made by the parties to the lawsuit?
The issue has come up again, this time out of the district. This time some (alleged?) crooked judges agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a particular sentence agreed to by the prosecutor. The federal judge rejected the deal in this order, in part because of the "scandalous conduct" of the judges.
What say you, readers? Are you persuaded by the court's reasoning? Should judges be permitted to reject the deals made by the parties to the lawsuit?
Monday, August 24, 2009
Bueller, Bueller, Bueller....
Is there a better comedy than Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Talk to me people. What's going on in Federal Court this week? Is it just going to be more UBS postings...
Summer's over -- there's gotta be something good going on.
You know it's slow when SFL is comparing Tom Julin to Kingpin and Rumpole is already doing football posts. BTW guys, check out this article -- anonymous bloggers are being outed. And is it me, or is it wrong to put someone (this time Richard Hatch) in jail for giving an interview while at a halfway house?
There are times, however, when it's better to just keep quiet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)