Friday news and notes

Well, not much happening here in the District, other than the badly-kept secret that former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor will be sitting on the Eleventh Circuit as a visiting judge in March. That should be fun...

In out-of-district news:

1. Jeffrey Rosen thinks President Obama should be Justice Obama.

2. You gotta read this dissent by Judge Kozinski. Here's a snippet: "It is also the only case I know of, in any jurisdiction covered by the Fourth Amendment, where invasion of the home has been approved based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes.
Whatever may have been left of the Fourth Amendment after Black is now gone. The visceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what Americans consider their castles is pretty much complete. Welcome to the fish bowl."

3. And this dissent by 10th Circuit Judge Carlos Lucero: "Were this case simply about an innocent game of canasta, I would readily join the opinion of my majority colleagues outright. However, the abrupt departure of the trial judge from the bench while defense counsel was discussing the testimony of defendant's star witness, when coupled with the court's earlier admonitions to the jury that the same witness's testimony was 'absolutely untrue' and a 'falsity,' can only be interpreted as a clear message to the jury that the witness was not credible or worthy of the court and jury's unbiased consideration." (Apparently, the trial judge left the bench during the defense's closing because it was "his secretary's afternoon to play canasta and he had to get a couple of letters out.") (HT: How Appealing)

Is Justice Kennedy part of the problem for high sentences?

The NY Times has this interesting editorial about Justice Kennedy and his comments criticizing too high sentences being doled out by our justice system:

Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke out against excessive prison sentences this month in California, criticizing the state’s deeply misguided three-strikes law. It was a welcome message, delivered with unusual force. Much of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme Court, which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote.
The overall tone of Justice Kennedy’s address to the Pepperdine University School of Law was “courtly and humorous,” according to The Los Angeles Times. He turned more serious, however, on the subject of incarceration. Sentences in the United States are eight times longer than those handed out in Europe, Justice Kennedy said. California has 185,000 people in prison at a cost of $32,500 each per year, he said. He urged voters and elected officials to compare taxpayer spending on prisons with spending on elementary education.

Justice Kennedy took special aim at the three-strikes law, which puts people behind bars for 25 years to life if they commit a third felony, even a nonviolent one. The law’s sponsor, he said, is the correctional officers’ union, “and that is sick.”

The criticism was on the mark. The state’s prison population has soared as a result of harsh sentencing laws and parole rules. California has been ordered by the courts to bring down the population of its prison system, which is badly overcrowded and unable to provide inmates with adequate medical care.

***

It’s not that the court is insensitive to excessive punishments. It has repeatedly thrown them out — when they are against corporations. In 2003, the year the court rejected Mr. Ewing’s case, it overturned a $145 million punitive damage award against the State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as so excessive that it violated the 14th Amendment due process clause.

Justice Kennedy is right that elected officials and voters should pay more attention to overincarceration. But courts also need to do their part by enforcing constitutional prohibitions on excessive punishment in cases involving people, as well as corporations.

The Times is of course correct -- sentences are way too long in this country. More needs to be done to limit them... The pendulum has finally started to swing in this direction with Booker and district judges being given discretion in most cases to fashion appropriate sentences. Now we need to abolish min/mans.

On to other Supreme Court news -- Justice Scalia says there is no right to secede. He said so in a letter to a screenwriter (who happens to be the brother of a law blogger). How cool:

Dan is a screenwriter (whose screenplay Tranquility Base was just named a finalist at the Vail Film Festival, and previously took top honors elsewhere). Back in 2006 he started working on a political farce that had Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada.

Bro was well ahead of the tea partiers in contemplating impending problems as we racked up massive debt. This doesn't get him an agent or a foot in the door of Hollywood to get his screenplays made into films -- it isn't what you write, but who you know -- but it does make him a prophet of sorts.

So, on a lark, he wrote to each of the 10 Supreme Court justices (including O'Connor) with this request:

I'm a screenwriter in New York City, and am writing to see if you might be willing to assist me in a project that involves a unique constitutional issue.

My latest screenplay is a comedy about Maine seceding from the United States and joining Canada. There are parts of the story that deal with the legality of such an event and, of course, a big showdown in the Supreme Court is part of the story.

At the moment my story is a 12 page treatment. As an architect turned screenwriter, it is fair to say that I come up a bit short in the art of Supreme Court advocacy. If you could spare a few moments on a serious subject that is treated in a comedic way, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I'm sure you'll find the story very entertaining.

I told Dan he was nuts. I told him his letter would be placed in the circular file. And then Scalia wrote back. Personally. Explicitly rejecting the right to secede:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one Nation, indivisible.") Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that -- but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

So there you have it. At least one vote solidly on record as saying that there is no right to secede. And it likely comes from a place the right wing secessionists most wanted to have a vote.

And yes, Dan still needs an agent. Because writing great scripts isn't enough if you don't know The Powers That Be on the other coast. And, for what it's worth, his now-completed script of Maine joining Canada is better than his award-winning one about a mis-adventure in space.

Here's the actual letter. Neat.

Too bad they didn't have Facebook when I was in highschool

Okay, so SFL got us hooked on this Scribd thing, so here goes. Judge Garber issued this very interesting order in a case involving a student who was suspended for starting a Facebook page about the "worst teacher [she] ever met!" The student sued, with the help of the ACLU, saying that she shouldn't have been suspended for exercising her First Amendment rights. The principal filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Garber denied (for the most part). The student's suit can proceed:

Facebook Order
UPDATE -- The Herald weighs in here:

A student who set up a Facebook page to complain about her teacher -- and was later suspended -- had every right to do so under the First Amendment, a federal magistrate has ruled.

The ruling not only allows Katherine ``Katie'' Evans' suit against the principal to move forward, it could set a precedent in cases involving speech and social networking on the Internet, experts say.

The courts are in the early stages of exploring the limits of free speech within social networking, said Howard Simon, the executive director of the Florida ACLU, which filed the suit on Evans' behalf.

``It's one of the main things that we wanted to establish in this case, that the First Amendment has a life in the social networking technology as it applies to the Internet and other forms of communication,'' Simon said.

SECOND UPDATE -- And here's the NY Times:

Lawyers for Ms. Evans, 19, now a sophomore at the University of Florida, said that they were pleased by the ruling and that they hoped to bring the case to trial in the spring.
One of the lawyers, Maria Kayanan, associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said the judge’s decision had clearly extended the protection of First Amendment rights to online writings of a nonthreatening manner.
“This is an important victory both for Ms. Evans and Internet free speech,” Ms. Kayanan said, “because it upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas.”

BREAKING -- Tom Raffanello acquitted -- by Judge

I'm told that in the middle of jury deliberations, visiting Judge Goldberg issued a judgment of acquittal for Tom Raffanello and his co-defendant. More to come.

UPDATE #1 -- Here's Curt Anderson from the AP on the case.

Federal Bar Judicial Reception

Good times tonight. Most of the judges and magistrates were at the Hyatt for the yearly judicial reception. Apparently before the event, Harvard Law Professors Charles Ogeltree and Alan Dershowitz (oops, apparently Dersh wasn't there) gave a talk to the judges (oops, apparently it was the clerks -- and a few judges also attended) at the courthouse.

SFLawyer has a funny post about the night. On his to do list for the evening:

Find the one judge willing to speak to me (Sam Slom?) and unleash new self-aggrandizing anecdote that reveals my wit, trial skills, wealth, humor, A-type dominance and general good taste.

Who's ready for the long weekend?

TRAFFIC!!!

Holy cow, was the traffic bad today or what?

The jury is out in the Tom Raffanello case. Here's a piece the Herald article explaining the closings:

While prosecutors charged Raffanello with trying to impede the government's case against the offshore banker, defense lawyers said their client never broke the law because all records in his office were stored electronically on a server.
``They were getting rid of junk,'' said defense lawyer Edward Shohat on Wednesday. ``No one tried to hide anything from anybody.''
Defense lawyers also said documents were routinely shredded at Stanford's security headquarters in Fort Lauderdale because they contained sensitive information on investors and company business partners.
Miami lawyer Richard Sharpstein slammed prosecutors, saying they never inspected the computers storing the office records. ``They didn't even look at what they have,'' he said.
Though Judge Richard W. Goldberg called the government's evidence in the case ``slim,'' he nevertheless allowed the case to go the jury.
Raffanello, wearing the pin of his former DEA agency in his lapel, was surrounded by a cadre of lawyers and former federal agents who showed up to support the veteran narcotics investigator who once led cases against Panama strongman Manuel Noriega and Medellín cartel kingpin Fabio Ochoa.
Prosecutors painted a vastly different portrait of the former lawman, saying he was corrupted by his job as security chief for one of the richest men in the world, and blatantly broke the law by destroying records -- despite a federal investigation.
Raffanello was well aware of an order from the receiver not to destroy any documents when he told Perraud to call in a shredding company, prosecutors said, adding that Raffanello was not in a position to decide which records the government should get.
``Their mantra was not to cooperate, but to frustrate,'' charged prosecutor Jack Patrick, saying Raffanello had destroyed important records and then tried ``to find a reason to justify it.''

Raffanello Trial: Charges against former DEA chief survive – for now

That's the headline from the DBR:

The defense in Miami maintains the destruction of papers in a 95-gallon bin was part of a routine shredding schedule and that the documents were duplicated on the firm’s computer servers. “The evidence is at best thin,” said visiting Judge Richard Goldberg. He said he would let the trial go forward but may reconsider the request for a directed verdict of acquittal later. The prosecution rested Monday, and the defense called its first witness late this morning. Sitting at the defense table were prominent Miami criminal defense attorneys Richard Sharpstein and Ed Shohat, who jointly argued the motion, as well as former Miami U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffey and Jane Moscowitz. Scheduled character witnesses are former Miami U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and Michael “Pat” Sullivan, deposed Panamanian ruler Manuel Noriega’s lead prosecutor.

It was probably one of the best cert. petitions I have ever read.”

That was former SG Seth Waxman on this cert petition written by a bank-robber named Shon Hopwood for another inmate John Fellers. Cert was granted, and Waxman took over the case, but only if Hopwood would stay involved. Here's the NY Times:

Shon R. Hopwood was not a particularly sophisticated bank robber.
“We would walk into a bank with firearms, tell people to get down, take the money and run,” he said the other day, recalling five robberies in rural Nebraska in 1997 and 1998 that yielded some $200,000 and more than a decade in federal prison.
Mr. Hopwood spent much of that time in the prison law library, and it turned out he was better at understanding the law than breaking it. He transformed himself into something rare at the top levels of the American bar, and unheard of behind bars: an accomplished Supreme Court practitioner.
He prepared his first petition for certiorari — a request that the Supreme Court hear a case — for a fellow inmate on a prison typewriter in 2002. Since Mr. Hopwood was not a lawyer, the only name on the brief was that of the other prisoner, John Fellers.
The court received 7,209 petitions that year from prisoners and others too poor to pay the filing fee, and it agreed to hear just eight of them. One was Fellers v. United States.
“It was probably one of the best cert. petitions I have ever read,” said Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general who has argued more than 50 cases in the Supreme Court. “It was just terrific.”
Mr. Waxman agreed to take the case on without payment. But he had one condition.
“I will represent you,” Mr. Waxman recalled telling Mr. Fellers, “if we can get this guy Shon Hopwood involved.”
Mr. Fellers said sure. “It made me feel good that we had Shon there to quarterback it,” he said.
The former solicitor general showed the bank robber drafts of his briefs. The two men consulted about how to frame the arguments, discussed strategy and tried to anticipate questions from the justices.

Pretty cool stuff! He won other cases too:

The law library changed Mr. Hopwood’s life.
“I kind of flourished there,” he said. “I didn’t want prison to be my destiny. When your life gets tipped over and spilled out, you have to make some changes.”
He was a quick study, but he had a lot to learn.
“In 2000,” he said, “I couldn’t have named a right in the Bill of Rights.”
By 2005, the Supreme Court had granted a second petition prepared by Mr. Hopwood, vacating a lower court decision and sending the case back for a fresh look. Mr. Hopwood has also helped inmates from Indiana, Michigan and Nebraska get sentence reductions of 3 to 10 years from lower courts.
Mr. Hopwood was released from prison in the fall of 2008. Mr. Fellers was out by then, and he owned a thriving car dealership in Lincoln.
“Here,” Mr. Fellers said, presenting his jailhouse lawyer with a 1989 Mercedes in pristine condition. “Thank you for getting me back to my daughter.”

Now Hopwood is working for a Supreme Court printing company:

Mr. Hopwood now works for a leading printer of Supreme Court briefs, Cockle Printing in Omaha.
“What a perfect fit for me,” he said. “I basically get to help attorneys get their briefs polished and perfected.”
His boss at Cockle, Trish Billotte, said she had some misgivings about hiring Mr. Hopwood. It was hard to believe his story, for starters, and it struck her as curious that an aspiring paralegal was driving around in a Mercedes.
But she called Mr. Hopwood’s references, including the former solicitor general. “You don’t get through to Seth Waxman,” Ms. Billotte said. But she did, and Mr. Waxman confirmed the facts and offered his endorsement.
“We did take a risk, but we have no second thoughts,” Ms. Billotte said. “Zero regrets.”
Mr. Hopwood, who is 34, said he hoped to apply to law school next year. Richard Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan who worked with Mr. Hopwood on the briefs for a recent Supreme Court case, said that he had already talked to the admissions office there about saving a spot.
Mr. Hopwood’s personal life is looking up, too. He married in August, and he and his wife had a son on Christmas Day.