NGs for the cops on trial before Judge Middlebrooks

Across the board not guilty verdicts today for the three police officers charged with perjury before Judge Middlebrooks. Richard Sharpstein was at his finest with the following quotes (via the Miami Herald):

• A triumph for truth, justice and the American way,'' Farraj's defense attorney, Richard Sharpstein, said Thursday. "Our clients are grateful for a true verdict by a great and dedicated jury.''
• "I've got bad news for you. There is no Superman. There is no Batman. That was George Clooney in a suit. Those weren't even his real abs,'' Sharpstein told jurors. "I'll tell you who the real crime fighters are: these gentleman sitting here in court.''
• Sharpstein blamed the twisted facts of the traffic stop on a rookie federal prosecutor, ... who "freaked out'' during his first court case and botched the case. "You always remember your first time and sometimes you remember it with a little pain and a lot of regret,'' Sharpstein said.

Beat LA (and Rumpole)

Running around like crazy the last few days, and then I see this straw man put up and knocked down by Rumpole on his blog. I will respond when I have a minute.

In the meantime, let me say that I obviously do not agree with Scalia's dissent in Holland, and I have not taken the position that Scalia is friendly to criminal defendants -- what I have said is that Scalia is the best friend that criminal defendants have on the Supreme Court (here's one of the first posts that got the debate started). That's not such high praise when the voting patterns of this Court are examined.

Anyway, more on this later when I have time to respond, and congrats to Todd Scher for the big victory.

Here are the 5 opinions that were decided today.

My first call for impeachment

Questions to ponder

I know, I know -- you're bored without Lost, American Idol, Dancing with the Stars, 24, and Glee. At least there's Friday Night Lights, and True Blood just came back. And football is just around the corner. While you wait, here are some questions to think about this Monday night:

1. Was Justice Souter right? John McGinnis and Michael Rapparort think no way.

2. Should Clarence Thomas run for President in 2012? Kashmir Hill and David Lat say yes!

3. Should state judges be permitted to affiliate with a political party? Yes, says the 7th Circuit. Here's the opinion. (Should we expect a similar Florida lawsuit soon?) The 7th Circuit did say that state judges could not endorse political candidates or directly solicit for cash, just like here in Florida.

Supreme Court to issue many opinions today

There are 24 pending cases and not much time left -- the Court closes down at the end of June. It has issued a whopping 53 opinions this year... (It's unbelievable how few cases the modern Supreme Court hears).

The Court will be issuing a number of opinions today. I am running around this morning, but check in at ScotusBlog at 10am (they will have a live feed) for the list of opinions and then we can talk about them this afternoon.

UPDATE -- Only 4 decisions decided today. From ScotusBlog:


In Dolan v. United States (09-367), the Court affirms, in an opinion written by Justice Breyer. The vote is 5-4, with a dissent by Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy.

Holding: A sentencing court that has missed the 90-day deadline may nevertheless order restitution, at least in some circumstances.
In Holland v. Florida (09-5327), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion again by Justice Breyer. The vote is 7-2. Justice Alito concurs in part and in the judgment, while Justice Scalia dissents, joined in part by Justice Thomas.

Holding: The Court permits equitable tolling of the habeas corpus filing deadline under the AEDPA.
In Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. The vote is unanimous, but Justice Sotomayor files a concurrence joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.

Holding: An individual who wins a case against the federal government and recovers attorney’s fees can have those offset if that individual owes a debt to the government.
In Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (09-60), the Court reverses, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous, though Justices Scalia and Thomas each file opinions concurring in the judgment only.

Holding: Second or subsequent crimes of possession of drugs are not aggravated felonies under federal immigration law when the underlying state conviction is not based on the fact that there was a prior conviction.

Judge Middlebrooks excludes Judge Altonaga

More fun in the cop perjury trial that I just posted about below. Judge Middlebrooks granted the defense "Motion in Limine to Exclude Federal District Judge Cecilia Altonaga."

The government wanted to call Judge Altonaga to demonstrate that the police officers' testimony was material to the suppresion hearing. Judge Middlebrooks found that Judge Altonaga's proposed testimony would violate Rule 403 as a jury would give too much credence to a district judge's testimony.

Here's the entire order:Judge Middle Brooks Excludes Judge Altonaga

Too bad, I would have gone to see Richard Sharpstein cross-examine Judge Altonaga...

"When something uncanny, accidental and unexpected happens."

That's the definition of coincidence.

There was a pretty incredible one today in Judge Middlebrooks' courtroom.

It was jury selection for the cops who were charged with perjury in connection with a Judge Altonaga case. They were charged with lying about AFPD D'Arsey Houlihan's client last year. Well, who was called for jury duty today before Judge Middlebrooks? Mr. Houlihan was. He sat in the box for a bit before the parties realized who he was. Needless to say, he wasn't picked for jury service...

Justice Souter on judging

Judging is a really hard and truly human exercise. Judges definitely are not umpires, according to Justice Souter. Here are his remarks at the Harvard commencement. Here are his closing remarks:

So, it is tempting to dismiss the critical rhetoric of lawmaking and activism as simply a rejection of too many of the hopes we profess to share as the American people. But there is one thing more. I have to believe that something deeper is involved, and that behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, or years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings for certainty, which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.
But I have come to understand that he was right, and by the same token I understand that I differ from the critics I’ve described not merely in seeing the patent wisdom of the Brown decision, or in espousing the rule excluding unlawfully seized evidence, or in understanding the scope of habeas corpus. Where I suspect we differ most fundamentally is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.
That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

Dahlia Lithwick has an interesting take on the speech here:

It's surely too much to ask that the modern confirmation process explore the complex work of balancing, in Justice Souter's recent words, a reliance on "reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people." The very notion that we could trust anyone to do all that is too frightening to contemplate. But could we at least ask that the nominee, and the senators, decline to insult our collective intelligence with the suggestion that judging is so easy, and the Constitution so crystal clear, that a second-year associate could do it.
It saddens me to think that it took Justice Souter 19 years of heavy constitutional lifting and departure from the court before he could turn to the American people and explain clearly that much as we might want judging to be easy, it never can be. It terrifies me even more to think that we've crafted a confirmation process in which the consistent message is that judging is so simple that any old bozo can do it. If we continue to believe that this is so, we will be on the road to confirming any old bozo that stumbles along.