That was Paul Calli in this morning's DBR discussing Scott Rothstein and his upcoming (but delayed) sentencing. More from Paul:
Calli warned prosecuting a case built on the word of master criminals like Rothstein is especially unreliable. “You take a guy who is nothing but a con man and you rely on him to accuse others. He has a built-in incentive to lie,” he said.
Jeff Weiner represents someone that Rothstein has cooperated against:
He said it was “sad and pathetic” that the federal government would turn to the state’s top scam artist to entrap his client. He contends the government is delaying Rothstein’s sentencing in hopes of reforming his reputation for the witness stand. The postponement “is only to keep from being sentenced so the government can bolster his credibility, which he has none, against the many people he has cooperated against,” Weiner said.
I wonder if Jeff will be able to get Rothstein to pass out on the stand...
Sentencing is currently scheduled for June for Rothstein before Judge Cohn. My best guess is that he gets somewhere between 20 and 25 years. What do you all think?
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
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
"For the tremendous philanthropic support he provides, the University of Miami is proud to name the Student-Athlete Lounge after Nevin Shapiro."
Newly minted SEC chief Eric Bustillo has come out of the box swinging with a $900 million Ponzi case against Mr. Shapiro. Shapiro is also charged in New Jersey and surrendered yesterday. He is represented by Mike Tein, Guy Lewis and Kate Meyers.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
8-1 Supreme Court strikes down law banning videos of animal cruelty
Rick Bascuas and I have had a lot to say on this issue as we represented the plaintiff in a similar case involving cockfighting videos. After the oral argument in Stevens (the dogfighting video case), I had this to say:
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.
Too bad I can't call football games that well! Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the defendant Stevens and invalidated the statute. Alito was the one dissenter. From the New York Times:
In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said the law created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous.”
***
As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs.” He continued, “Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
Having concluded that the First Amendment had a role to play in the analysis, the chief justice next considered whether the law on animal-cruelty depictions swept too broadly.
The 1999 law was enacted mainly to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish.”
“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” according to the report. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.”
When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment, and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” But since then, the government has used the law in several prosecutions for trafficking in dogfighting videos.
Chief Justice Roberts said the law applied even more broadly. Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.
“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders or magnitude,” he wrote.
The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Those exceptions were insufficient to save the statute, the chief justice wrote.
“Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature,” he said, “except in the sense that all life is a lesson.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the majority’s analysis was built on “fanciful hypotheticals."
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.
Too bad I can't call football games that well! Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the defendant Stevens and invalidated the statute. Alito was the one dissenter. From the New York Times:
In a major and muscular First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said the law created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous.”
***
As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “the First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh its costs.” He continued, “Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.”
Having concluded that the First Amendment had a role to play in the analysis, the chief justice next considered whether the law on animal-cruelty depictions swept too broadly.
The 1999 law was enacted mainly to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish.”
“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” according to the report. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.”
When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment, and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.” But since then, the government has used the law in several prosecutions for trafficking in dogfighting videos.
Chief Justice Roberts said the law applied even more broadly. Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.
“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders or magnitude,” he wrote.
The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Those exceptions were insufficient to save the statute, the chief justice wrote.
“Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature,” he said, “except in the sense that all life is a lesson.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the majority’s analysis was built on “fanciful hypotheticals."
Monday, April 19, 2010
I demand a retraction!
Today's DBR (John Pacenti) covers the Jonathan Goodman imminent appointment as magistrate judge (filling Judge Garber's seat). We previously broke the story here. From the article: "U.S. District Chief Judge Federico Moreno wouldn't confirm blog reports last week that judges in the district have picked the Miami lawyer."
The article goes on to discuss how Kathy Williams and Willy Ferrer are still waiting for their appointments (Kathy to the bench and Willy to U.S. Attorney). Ferrer, at least, has been nominated (and will likely be confirmed this week or next). Kathy's file is apparently on the President's desk. I'm not sure what Obama is waiting for. It's really outrageous.
Pacenti says that Michael Caruso is "the odd-on favorite" to take over the Federal Defender's job when Kathy finally gets nominated: "David O. Markus, a former federal prosecutor, said Caruso is the natural choice. ... Markus, who runs the Southern District of Florida blog, ..."
Well, at least the blog got mentioned...
The article goes on to discuss how Kathy Williams and Willy Ferrer are still waiting for their appointments (Kathy to the bench and Willy to U.S. Attorney). Ferrer, at least, has been nominated (and will likely be confirmed this week or next). Kathy's file is apparently on the President's desk. I'm not sure what Obama is waiting for. It's really outrageous.
Pacenti says that Michael Caruso is "the odd-on favorite" to take over the Federal Defender's job when Kathy finally gets nominated: "David O. Markus, a former federal prosecutor, said Caruso is the natural choice. ... Markus, who runs the Southern District of Florida blog, ..."
Well, at least the blog got mentioned...
Friday, April 16, 2010
Kobie Gary gets 30 months
I'm not sure whether this was a guideline sentence or not as none of the articles explain. Here's the most in depth piece. Willie Gary had this to say about his son after the sentencing:
"I want to thank God for giving me my son alive because based on the guys he was hanging with and the things they were doing, rather than be in a courtyard I could be in the graveyard.”
Update-- from what I'm hearing, this was a win for the defense as the government was seeking a leadership enhancement which would have resulted in a much higher sentence of at least 5 years. Can anyone confirm?
"I want to thank God for giving me my son alive because based on the guys he was hanging with and the things they were doing, rather than be in a courtyard I could be in the graveyard.”
Update-- from what I'm hearing, this was a win for the defense as the government was seeking a leadership enhancement which would have resulted in a much higher sentence of at least 5 years. Can anyone confirm?
Cocodorm case heard by 11th Circuit
You remember this case, right? It's the one where Judge Cooke ruled that operating a porn site from inside one's home is permitted in a residential area. The 11th Circuit heard argument yesterday, and John Pacenti covered it here. Judge Pryor wasn't sympathetic:
In 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel indicated Thursday that the keyhole should be closed on Internet porn sites broadcasting from private residences, saying the sites constitute a business and could violate municipal zoning ordinances. “We live in the world of reality TV. People will watch anything,” said Judge William H. Pyror, one of three judges hearing the city’s appeal. His comments came during oral arguments in the city of Miami’s appeal to enforce municipal codes at a two-story colonial home north of downtown Miami used by cocodorm.com, a gay sex site that provides in-home camera feeds to subscribers. The house at 503 NE 27th St. is essentially a production studio because independent contractors provide a service for a salary, room and board, the appellate judge said. But U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ruled last year in favor of cocodorm’s parent company, Flava Works, citing a 2001 ruling by the 11th Circuit that concluded such homes did not constitute adult entertainment business because the product was essentially in cyberspace.
***
Benjamin told the panel, which included 11th Circuit Judge Peter Fay and Senior U.S. District Judge Jordan J. Quist, visiting from Michigan, that neighbors were undisturbed by the residents. The only difference is cameras were set up in every nook and cranny to record their daily lives, which happened to include lots of sex. The red house’s windows are whited out. There was only one vehicle parked there Thursday.
I was with Judge Cooke on this one, but it looks like it might get sent back for additional hearings:
Benjamin repeatedly referred to the 2001 decision when a panel ruled a home transmitting online images of copulating college co-eds did not violate Tampa’s zoning ordinance banning adult businesses in residential areas.
***
The court indicated it most likely would send the case back to Cooke with instructions that the Tampa case is not controlling.
In 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel indicated Thursday that the keyhole should be closed on Internet porn sites broadcasting from private residences, saying the sites constitute a business and could violate municipal zoning ordinances. “We live in the world of reality TV. People will watch anything,” said Judge William H. Pyror, one of three judges hearing the city’s appeal. His comments came during oral arguments in the city of Miami’s appeal to enforce municipal codes at a two-story colonial home north of downtown Miami used by cocodorm.com, a gay sex site that provides in-home camera feeds to subscribers. The house at 503 NE 27th St. is essentially a production studio because independent contractors provide a service for a salary, room and board, the appellate judge said. But U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke ruled last year in favor of cocodorm’s parent company, Flava Works, citing a 2001 ruling by the 11th Circuit that concluded such homes did not constitute adult entertainment business because the product was essentially in cyberspace.
***
Benjamin told the panel, which included 11th Circuit Judge Peter Fay and Senior U.S. District Judge Jordan J. Quist, visiting from Michigan, that neighbors were undisturbed by the residents. The only difference is cameras were set up in every nook and cranny to record their daily lives, which happened to include lots of sex. The red house’s windows are whited out. There was only one vehicle parked there Thursday.
I was with Judge Cooke on this one, but it looks like it might get sent back for additional hearings:
Benjamin repeatedly referred to the 2001 decision when a panel ruled a home transmitting online images of copulating college co-eds did not violate Tampa’s zoning ordinance banning adult businesses in residential areas.
***
The court indicated it most likely would send the case back to Cooke with instructions that the Tampa case is not controlling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)