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
The Rekers scandal has reached the New York Times. The article raises the question of whether the lawyers who relied on Rekers' testimony as an expert witness have an ethical obligation to inform the court of what happened.
Okay, we are in a poll taking mood. Here's two more while we are at it:
Lots of change going on over at the U.S. Attorney's office. Multiple sources have told me that:
Ben Greenberg is now the 1st Assistant U.S. Attorney Ed Stamm is Chief of Criminal Ed Nucci has the new position of "Managing Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern Offices" Marcus Christian is the "Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney" in charge of hiring and recruiting George Karavestos is the Chief of Narcotics Joan Silverstein is the Chief of Economic and Environmental crimes Bob Senior is the Chief of Public Integrity
That was the statement by Peter Prieto and Steve Marks after they filed a civil complaint against Jeffrey Epstein for violating his agreement to pay the victims of his sexual offenses. The case landed before Judge Gold. Here's the AP story by Curt Anderson:
Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is violating an agreement with federal prosecutors by refusing to pay more than $2 million in legal fees to attorneys representing a dozen of his victims, according to a new federal lawsuit. Epstein, a New Yorker who owns a Palm Beach mansion, a Paris apartment, a 70-acre Caribbean island and a 7,500-acre New Mexico ranch, could ultimately face federal prosecution stemming from his alleged assaults on mostly teenage girls if he continues to refuse to pay the fees, the victims' attorneys said Tuesday.
*** Under the deal Epstein signed with prosecutors in 2007, he would avoid federal charges and potentially lengthy prison sentences as long as he abided by several conditions — including paying fees for lawyers representing victims. His failure to pay, according to the lawsuit, is a "material breach" of that agreement that could open the door to federal criminal prosecution, according the lawsuit filed in Miami federal court late Monday. An attorney for Epstein did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment and the Miami U.S. attorney's office — which signed the agreement with Epstein — declined comment. Epstein, a 57-year-old investor, pleaded guilty in Palm Beach County in 2008 to two state prostitution counts and was designated a sex offender. He was sentenced to 18 months in jail following by a year of house arrest, which he is currently serving at his $6.8 million Palm Beach residence.
Well, SFL hasn't used Scribd in a while, so I figured I get in on the fun. Here's a complaint filed by David Mandel against Scott Rothstein and TD Bank for civil RICO that landed before Judge Cooke:
Coquina, an investment partnership based in Texas, alleges that TD Bank was complicit with Rothstein in the Ponzi scheme. According to the complaint, Coquina’s representatives met directly with Rothstein and Regional Vice-President Frank Spinosa at TD Bank’s corporate offices in Fort Lauderdale. At that meeting, Spinosa allegedly vouched for both Rothstein and the safety of the Coquina’s investments.
Also of interest, last week Spinosa’s counsel informed the parties in the RRA bankruptcy proceeding that his client intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and will refuse to answer deposition questions.
This is the case that keeps on giving...
In other news, Rumpole is railing on Justice Scalia because he dissented in the Graham case yesterday. What Rumpole doesn't tell you is that Scalia also dissented in United States v. Comstock, in which the Supreme Court said that federal law allows a district court to order the civil commitment of a mentally ill federal prisoner beyond the date he would otherwise be released. Scalia said that Congress didn't have authority to pass such a law under the necessary and proper clause. He's not perfect, but Scalia is the best friend a criminal defendant has in the Supremes.
Update-- I guess this is Justice Kennedy day. Today he wrote for the Supreme Court that a life sentence for a juvenile was unconstitutional where the defendant did not commit murder. He cited evolving standards of decency and also world standards. It's a fascinating read, especially in light of his comments on Friday regarding empathy and sentencing. More to follow.
Justice Kennedy doesn't like to pick sides or call himself the swing voter. On Friday, I posted John Pacenti's coverage of Kennedy's speech to the Palm Beach County Bar Association. His quote about being the swing voter is traveling around the blogosphere: "It has to me the imagery of these wild spatial gyrations. I don't swing around the cases. They swing around me. My jurisprudence is quite consistent."
In addition to Pacenti, the Palm Beach Post covered the talk here and the Palm Beach Daily News here:
"The Constitution doesn’t just belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers — it’s yours,” he told the students. “The principles of the Constitution and of freedom must be taught ... That’s how our heritage is handed down from one generation to the next.” Kennedy told the group about a friend of his who had been an appellate judge for six months, when he listened to an argument from an attorney about how the trial judge had erred. The attorney closed his argument by saying the trial judge was new and had only been on the bench for three months. “My friend leaned over and said, ‘It may interest you to know I’ve only been on this bench for six months,’” Kennedy said. “And without missing a beat, the lawyer said, ‘It’s surprising, your honor, how much a judge can learn in 90 days.’” While speaking before a group of attorneys and judges, Kennedy was asked how he reads the enormous amount of briefs. Kennedy told them he sometimes takes difficult cases home to read as he listens to opera music. “I sometimes have one-opera cases and sometimes two-opera cases,” he said. “An attorney in the room raised his hand and said, ‘I have a rule like that when I write those briefs. I have a one-six-pack brief and a two-six-pack brief.’”
John Pacenti has the details here. The whole thing is definitely worth a read, but here is a part:
Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Kennedy voted with the majority 92 percent of the time in the 2008-2009 term. On the 23 decisions decided by 5-4 votes, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. “I don’t swing around the cases. They swing around me,” he said. “My jurisprudence is quite consistent.”
In one of his many jokes during the speech, Kennedy was asked what makes an “activist court.” He replied, “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don’t like.”
But Kennedy also was serious. He said it’s important to teach the young about the Constitution and its importance because the law in other countries is considered a threat, not a blessing for society.
When asked if empathy has a place in judicial rulings at the highest levels, Kennedy said absolutely. He said prison sentences in the United States are eight times longer than in other Western countries for the same crimes.
“If lack of empathy means you close your eyes to the law’s decree, that’s just silly,” Kennedy said. “Capital defendants in a single windowless 12-by-8 cell for 20 years waiting for their sentence. You are not supposed to know this when you are a judge?” He said mandatory minimum laws passed by state legislatures are cost foolish and have created a failing penal system. In conclusion, Kennedy said he expects the dynamic to change among justices when Kagan, if confirmed, joins the court. “It’s a new table. It’s a new court,” he said.
Took a quick trip to the Middle District yesterday. I think I can fly to Tampa, drive to the Pinelas county jail, see my client, drive back to the airport, and fly back to Miami quicker than I can walk across the street to FDC and see a client there.
I know this is off-topic, but this is too good to pass up -- from the Miami Herald: "Principal tells parent to 'eat s--- and die'." Whoops! The dreaded e-mail mistake where you hit reply instead of forward.
First, as Nina Totenberg first reported, Kagan signed this letter in 2005 strongly protesting Lindsay Graham’s amendment to limit the Guantanamo Bay detainees’ access to federal courts. This is far more direct evidence of Kagan’s views on executive powers in foreign affairs than the isolated statement in her confirmation hearings that has been invoked as supposedly showing her support for Bush-era policies. The letter should assuage liberal opponents, but raises the question whether Graham and other moderate Republicans may vote against her.
Second, as the New York Times reported, Miguel Estrada unambiguously endorsed Kagan’s confirmation. Estrada is a hero of conservatives, given his treatment when he was nominated by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit. The endorsement gives Democrats and the White House ammunition to argue that Republicans are simply playing politics.
Third, as Jim Oliphantreported, Kagan signed a memo while working in the White House stating that President should sign an assault weapons ban. And as Greg Stohr of Bloomberg has reported, while clerking for Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” to the claim that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment; that is the claim the Supreme Court accepted in the Heller case. Both statements by Kagan reflected the position of her employers – the White House and Justice Marshall – and her brief statement as a law clerk about the Second Amendment claim (literally a single short sentence) represented the view of every court of appeals. But those statements will almost certainly be enough to cause the NRA, with its considerable influence, to formally oppose the nomination.
Jay Weaver is reporting that Judge Lenard didn't accept the plea deals in a health-care fraud case in which patient files were sold to personal injury lawyers. Judge Lenard is concerned that the punishment agreed to does not fit the crime:
Ruben E. Rodriguez, the ringleader, would face up to 12 years in prison. His wife, Maria Victoria Suarez, 52, would face up to five years. ``These charges are much too serious -- much too serious for our community,'' Lenard said. ``Violations of the law in the healthcare industry have become too much the norm [in Miami-Dade]. There are real victims here.'' Rodriguez, 62, who attended the hearing in a wheelchair because of poor health, has pleaded guilty to two conspiracy offenses and aggravated identity theft. He admitted he stole Jackson records of patients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and medical diagnoses and sold them to several attorneys in exchange for kickbacks. He also admitted stealing records from an ambulance company dating back to 1995. In exchange for the confidential information, lawyers paid Rodriguez hundreds of thousands of dollars after settling injury claims on the patients' behalfs, prosecutors say. One unidentified personal-injury attorney wrote 27 checks totaling $85,250 to a shell company incorporated by Rodriguez between 2006 and 2009. On Tuesday, Lenard said she could not decide whether to accept Rodriguez's guilty plea until she reviewed sentencing guidelines for his offenses to make sure the penalties were tough enough.
We've discussed before the issue of whether judges should be able to reject plea deals -- the last time it came up was in the Robles case:
Query -- does a federal judge have the power to reject this sort of deal? Because this is a charge bargain deal, can't the government just dismiss the other counts on its own, leaving only the ten year maximum count? I think the real question is whether the government will have the heart to do this after Judge Gold has said he will not approve the deal. If in our adversarial system of justice the prosecution believes that a deal is fair, should a judge step in?
From another post on the subject:
The Louis Robles case has pitted prosecutors against the judiciary. The government and the defense had worked out a deal for Robles -- 10 years in prison plus restitution -- and that deal had the blessing of the receiver and almost all of the victims.Judge Gold, however, won't accept the deal, saying it's too lenient. The government recently filed a 16 page motion for reconsideration explaining why the plea made sense. Judge Gold denied that motion, which now leaves the government with two choices. It can try a case that neither party wants to try. Or it can dismiss the counts that carry more than a 10 year maximum, leaving Judge Gold with no choice but to sentence Robles to 10 years, even after a trial.Oftentimes, defense lawyers complain that sentencing is driven by prosecutors and that it should be left to judges to sentence, not executive officers. In this case, prosecutorial discretion is important in capping the sentence.Any thoughts on what the U.S. Attorney's office should do? Should they defer to the judge or stand up for their position?
