Oral arguments at the Supreme Court

So I snuck out a bit early from my meeting today and went over to the Supreme Court. I sat in the attorney room for the tail end of the Stevens case, which addressed whether the First Amendment trumped the statute prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty. From what I heard, the case will be 8-1 in favor of the criminal defendant Stevens, holding that Section 48 -- prohibiting the sale of depictions of animal cruelty -- is unconstitutional. The one Justice that seemed to say that Congress could pass such a statute was Alito.

Then I actually got into the courtroom and saw the oral argument in Johnson v. United States, a sentencing case from the Eleventh Circuit addressing whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a “violent felony,” even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force.

It's amazing how close they let members of the Supreme Court bar sit to the Justices. It's like sitting in the front section of the movie theatre before the stadium seating starts. Very close. In this case Justices Scalia and Breyer were going at it. Scalia was clearly in favor of the criminal defendant and Breyer was clearly against. It will be a close case, probably 5-4... I would bet in favor of the defendant. Scalia used a hypo that made everyone laugh -- he asked whether if he told the government lawyer to shut up or he would flick her with his index finger, then would he be committing a violent felony. The government lawyer said yes... Any unwanted touching counted. Scalia didn't agree. Sotomayor was also an active questioner. Breyer kept asking about the "mine run" case, which sounded weird after the 4th or 5th time he used that term. He also took a jab at Scalia, saying if one were to read the legislative history of the statute, which some of his colleagues didn't do, it would be clear that Congress intended to cover this conduct. Chief Justice Roberts said that Congress could have been clearer and used the word battery if it wanted all battery cases covered.

UPDATE -- here's SCOTUSBlog's coverage of the Stevens' case.

PICTURES:

Supreme Court to hear dogfighting video case

Brian Maloney summarizes Stevens v. United States here. The issue is an interesting one: whether the First Amendment protects videos depicting animal cruelty. The Third Circuit found that the First Amendment did in fact protect such videos. From ScotusBlog:

The en banc Third Circuit overturned Stevens’s conviction, holding that the statute was unconstitutional on its face as a content-based prohibition on protected speech. The court first held that the speech regulated by § 48 is protected under the First Amendment. In its view, only one of the established categories of unprotected speech – child pornography – is even somewhat similar to the speech prohibited under § 48. The Supreme Court’s opinion in New York v. Ferber, holding that child pornography is not protected speech, set forth a number of factors to consider when determining whether to “create” a new category of unprotected speech. Applying these factors to the case at hand, the Third Circuit emphasized that although preventing cruelty to animals is “appealing . . . to our sensibilities,” it is not a compelling governmental interest in the context of free speech. Thus, it held, § 48 fails strict scrutiny because “it serves no compelling government interest, is not narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest, and does not provide the least restrictive means to achieve such an interest.”

I had a similar case involving cockfighting videos, detailed here but the case never got ruled on as we had to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. Shoot, this could have been my ticket to the Supreme Court...

First Monday in October

It's that time again, and I'm actually in DC for the day. Unfortunately, I'm not getting over to the Court for the first day of oral arguments this Term.

I'll post if I can get to a laptop later today; if not carry on in the comment section.

Miami is BACK

And it's not just the Hurricanes.

We've got all kinds of big fraud and corruption cases on the front page of the Herald this Sunday morning. There's Alan Mendelsohn's story, there's the advice given to Allen Stanford by Greenberg Traurig, and there's the investigation into prominent lobbyist Neil Sterling.

Ahhh yes, Miami is back.

Judge Graham is looking for a law clerk...

... to start now! Here's the vacancy posting.

Also check out SFLawyer for good coverage of Judge Jordan's recent dismissal of a case involving a lesbian woman and her children who were not allowed to visit her dying partner's bedside at Jackson. The Herald's story is here. The NYT piece is here.

News & Notes (UPDATED)

Lots going on today:

1. Another Mutual Benefits arrest: this time it's eye doctor Alan Mendelsohn. From Jay Weaver's article: Dr. Alan Mendelsohn, a Hollywood ophthalmologist who has raised millions for Florida politicians, surrendered to FBI agents on charges linked to his alleged efforts to thwart a 2000-05 state investigation into Mutual Benefits Corp., a Fort Lauderdale life insurance company.
An indictment charges Mendelsohn with 27 counts of wire and mail fraud and five counts of making false statements to federal agents related to a fraudulent fundraising and lobbying scheme, according to prosecutors.
Mendelsohn raised more than a half-million dollars from Mutual Benefits in 2003 to finance the hiring of a dozen lobbyists and make contributions to lawmakers, to stop legislation that would have tightened regulations on the so-called viatical industry. The industry sold life insurance policies of people dying of AIDS and other diseases.
The indictment alleges that Mendelsohn used a variety of false solicitations to raise money, including saying he had brokered illegal agreements with top Florida officials to close state and federal investigations. The indictment says that, in fact, no such agreements existed.
Mendelsohn, 51, is expected to appear in federal court in Fort Lauderdale Wednesday morning. His defense lawyer, John Keker of San Francisco, could not be reached for comment.

UPDATE -- The print version of the article, here, has lots more juicy details:

According to the indictment, Mendelsohn raised the $2 million from Mutual Benefits, an unidentified medical lab, a parimutuel business and a credit-card counseling firm during the past decade. Numerous medical colleagues of Mendelsohn's also contributed.

An unidentified ``accomplice'' assisted Mendelsohn in setting up the three political action committees and three corporations to move and disguise at least $624,000 in campaign funds paid to himself and others, according to the indictment.

Mendelsohn used some of the donations to pay $60,000 a month to his ``mistress'' from April 2003 to February 2005 for her assistance with the fundraising efforts, the indictment says. It also accused him of using $240,000 in PAC funds to buy and paint a residence for them and to buy a car for her.

The mistress is not identified in the indictment. But according to sources familiar with the case and public records, she is Caybre Cothern Ferrari, 39, who once worked as a scrub tech for Mendelsohn's eye surgery clinic.

At Mendelsohn's suggestion, the mistress established a corporation in March 2004 to divert campaign funds to Mendelsohn, herself, Florida politicians and others, the indictment says. It is illegal to divert campaign funds to personal use.

Public records show Ferrari created Broward-based KAC Consulting Inc. in March 2004.

Also in March 2004, records show that Ferrari transferred the deed to a home in Hollywood to her maiden name, Cothern. Mendelsohn is listed as a witness on the deed, records show.

2. The Supreme Court granted cert in 10 cases today, including a bunch of criminal law issues. SCOTUSBlog has all the details. The big one that everyone is talking about is: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago -- Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home. More interesting to me is the sentencing issue raised in United States v. O’Brien and Burgess: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machine gun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.

More on Ben Kuehne

This weekend Jay Weaver had an interesting article about the oral argument in Ben Kuehne's case. Background here. Jay asks whether DOJ has targeted Fabio Ochoa's lawyers because they actually had the nerve to go to trial. And Joe DeMaria, the recent quote-master, is at it again:

"This is the Scopes Monkey trial of money laundering cases,'' said former federal prosecutor Joseph DeMaria, referring to the historic 1925 test case in Tennessee over the teaching of evolution in school.**
"If the government wins a conviction against somebody like Ben Kuehne, it will send the defense bar into a deep freeze,'' said DeMaria, who has represented several white-collar defendants in civil forfeiture cases. "This isn't just about drug dealing; it affects the entire spectrum of law enforcement.''

Read the whole article... Good stuff.

Sitting here watching MNF right now. It was a long weekend for Miami sports. Dolphins, Canes, Pennington.... Ugh. At least we got off the board in the blog fantasy league.

**I like how Jay has to explain to the Herald readers what the Scopes Monkey trial is all about...

Happy weekend my peeps

Just saw that the blog made the WSJ blog this week. Pretty cool.

Hopefully the blog football team will have a better performance. We have the same record as the Dolphins right now... (But in my real league, I'm doing well. Does that count here?)

Have a good weekend everyone.

UPDATE -- hat tip to SFLawyer on this story from the Palm Beach Post re the non-prosecution agreement of Jeffrey Epstein. Apparently, for doign 18 months in state court and agreeing to pay for the victims' lawyers, he avoided federal prosecution. The article and the agreement are definitely worth a read.