Friday

Last night was an unbelievable event for the FBA. Congrats to Brett Barfield for the most well-attended event in recent history.

The District just updated its website, but now there is a push to have all the district courts conform to a template. Not sure why this is what our government should be spending money on. Does it matter if our District's website is the same as the District of Oregon's website? This example of inconsistency doesn't really persuade me:

The home page for the U.S. District Court for Alabama's middle district cheerily offers a "Kids' Corner" where "kids of all ages" can find out more about the federal court system. But if you go to the court's home page for information on filing a judicial misconduct complaint, you'll only find it if you click on the "judges information" tab.

Nebraska's federal district court site, on the other hand, has a tab specifically labeled "judicial misconduct and disability" on its home page. But its "kids' corner" is pretty well hidden under a "community/educational outreach" tab.

Those randomly picked examples of inconsistency between federal trial court Web sites may become a thing of the past because of a recently created "website toolbox" that went out to all 94 district courts late last month.

In other news, Mr. Melendez-Diaz of Supreme Court fame, just won an acquittal. From the Boston Globe:

A Jamaica Plain man has been acquitted in a retrial of a cocaine trafficking case that went to the US Supreme Court and resulted in a landmark decision affecting evidence in criminal trials around the country.

Melendez-Diaz’s appeal of his 2004 cocaine trafficking conviction led to a ruling by the Supreme Court in 2009 that the US Constitution’s Sixth Amendment guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to confront forensic experts in court.

The ruling invalidated a Massachusetts law that allowed prosecutors to present forensic experts’ reports as evidence without giving defendants a chance to cross-examine them.

During Melendez-Diaz’s retrial, prosecutors followed the new regime laid out by the high court. On Wednesday, they called to the stand a chemist from the state Department of Public Health who testified that the substance allegedly found in the back seat of a police cruiser with Melendez-Diaz and two other men in 2001 had tested positive for cocaine.

Margaret Fox, defense lawyer for Melendez-Diaz, said the verdict was “an enormous relief.’’

“It was a case that really seemed to be about guilt by association,’’ she said. “He’s very thankful he was given a second trial and that the jury got it right.’’

“This was a murder case. His vacation schedule trumped everything. You don’t make decisions based on [when you will be] sipping piña coladas.”

That was Alan Dershowitz, criticizing a judge (during an appellate oral argument) for forcing a defense lawyer to give a closing so that the judge could get to his vacation.

Dersh did give props to the appellate court: Afterwards, Dershowitz said, "The court was extremely well prepared. ... No one can predict the outcome of an appeal."

Federal Bar Judicial Reception

It's tonight at the Hyatt. 5:30-8:30. Always a great event.

Omar is coming

Does it count as a win in the 11th Circuit if you get a reversal because the district judge didn't staple his findings on the defendant's objections to the PSI?

What else is going on?

Professor Ogeltree has come up with the coolest law school class ever: “Race and Justice — The Wire.” The Wire has to be a top 5 show of all time, no?

Not a good way to start an opinion if you are a criminal defendant

This appeal involves the reasonableness of the sentence for the robber of a post office who thrust his revolver close to the face of a postal clerk, demanded money, and shouted a racial slur and obscenities and had a history of violent criminal behavior. Harold Leroy Housley Jr. challenges his sentence of 120 months of imprisonment, which is 42 months above the guidelines range of 63 to 78 months, for robbery of money belonging to the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2114(a).

Odds on whether the next sentence in the opinion is "We affirm" or "We reverse"?

My favorite (non-game) Super Bowl moments

“Notice of Appeal Rule 4(a) of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Request Permission to Appeal My 17 Years of Wrongful Conviction"

It's almost impossible for a criminal defendant to win in the 11th Circuit. But the pro se prisoner who filed the above pleading in the court of appeals did just that. From the opinion's intro:

Luis Camejo-Rodriguez seeks relief from his 1995 guilty plea to various cocaine and firearm offenses. In the instant appeal, he argues that the document he filed on September 11, 2009, entitled “Notice of Appeal Rule 4(a) of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Request Permission to Appeal My 17 Years of Wrongful Conviction,” is an application to this Court for an order authorizing him to file a second or successive habeas petition. We conclude that Camejo-Rodriguez does not need such an order because the district court failed to properly notify him of the consequences of re-characterizing an earlier motion as his first § 2255 habeas petition, as required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383, 124 S. Ct. 786,
792 (2003). Therefore, Camejo-Rodriguez is entitled to file a habeas petition that is not subject to the restrictions placed on second or successive petitions.

UPDATE--Congrats to AFPD Janice Bergman who was appointed by the 11th to represent Mr. Camejo-Rodriguez.

Interesting post about D.C. Circuit nominee

Before Kathy Williams' confirmation hearing, the judiciary committee heard from D.C. Circuit nominee Caitlin Halligan. There's an interesting post from the BLT on how that hearing went. Here's the intro:

Caitlin Halligan followed an often-used script today during her confirmation hearing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, telling a Senate committee that if confirmed, she would defer to Supreme Court precedent and to the Framers' intent.

But her hour-long testimony made clear that Republicans are laying the ground for possible opposition to her nomination. They questioned Halligan, a longtime New York appellate lawyer, about statements she’s made or signed on to, and they renewed a long-running debate about whether the influential D.C. Circuit has more judges than it needs.

If confirmed, Halligan, 44, would quickly be on the short list for the next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Four sitting justices are alumni of the D.C. Circuit, and she is President Barack Obama’s first nominee for the D.C. Circuit.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned it might not be easy for Halligan to get there.

“This committee has multiple precedents establishing a heightened level of scrutiny given to nominees for the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit,” Grassley said at the opening of Halligan’s hearing. He listed President George W. Bush’s six nominees for the court — only four of whom were confirmed. “All had a difficult and lengthy confirmation process. This included delays, filibusters, multiple hearings and other forms of obstruction,” he said.

Democrats responded by lauding Halligan’s credentials, including as New York’s state solicitor general and as head of the appellate practice at Weil, Gotshal & Manges. Early in her career, she clerked for former D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Patricia Wald and for Justice Stephen Breyer. She’s now general counsel in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

“The remarkable thing about Caitlin’s experience is her unique depth of knowledge about the practicalities of government,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

Under questioning, Halligan, pictured above, kept her answers short and emphasized judicial modesty. She called the Constitution an “enduring” document and echoed conservative jurists’ language about originalism. “If faced with a constitutional question, a judge has to look to the text and attempt to understand the original intent behind those words,” she said.