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
Monday, April 04, 2011
Sunday, April 03, 2011
"I didn’t sense a hostility about being Cuban-American...
...but I sensed a distrust from the committee about being a young mother who wanted to be a judge.”
That was Judge Altonaga responding to a question from a student at her former school. The Herald has the nice story about her return to the school here:
The first Cuban-American woman ever appointed to a U.S. federal court bench said studying at Notre Dame Academy in Miami taught her the meaning of tolerance. It was the end of 1970s, one of the most tumultuous periods of racial discontent in Miami’s history. Her all-girls high school was one of the most racially integrated in the city. “I remember in my last year, coming back from a graduation night,” said Cecilia María Altonaga, who graduated in 1980.
“Our parents had to pick us up from the school, and the riots were going on at the same time. The school was closed. It was dangerous.” There were no final exams that year, due to the violence. But inside the school, a different story about race was unfolding. “This was a place that exhibited all these different racial/ethnic groups coexisting, working together, overcoming differences,” said Altonaga. “There is this perception that all Catholic girls schools are elitist or homogenous or they exclude people. This was quite the opposite, one of the most diverse groups of young women working together.”
She returned to her alma mater — which soon after she graduated merged with Archbishop Curley High School — on Saturday to talk about her career in the law to about two dozen current students. The forum followed a special Mass at the Archbiship Curley-Notre Dame High School, which each year honors an alum who now serves the community as an attorney or judge.
That was Judge Altonaga responding to a question from a student at her former school. The Herald has the nice story about her return to the school here:
The first Cuban-American woman ever appointed to a U.S. federal court bench said studying at Notre Dame Academy in Miami taught her the meaning of tolerance. It was the end of 1970s, one of the most tumultuous periods of racial discontent in Miami’s history. Her all-girls high school was one of the most racially integrated in the city. “I remember in my last year, coming back from a graduation night,” said Cecilia María Altonaga, who graduated in 1980.
“Our parents had to pick us up from the school, and the riots were going on at the same time. The school was closed. It was dangerous.” There were no final exams that year, due to the violence. But inside the school, a different story about race was unfolding. “This was a place that exhibited all these different racial/ethnic groups coexisting, working together, overcoming differences,” said Altonaga. “There is this perception that all Catholic girls schools are elitist or homogenous or they exclude people. This was quite the opposite, one of the most diverse groups of young women working together.”
She returned to her alma mater — which soon after she graduated merged with Archbishop Curley High School — on Saturday to talk about her career in the law to about two dozen current students. The forum followed a special Mass at the Archbiship Curley-Notre Dame High School, which each year honors an alum who now serves the community as an attorney or judge.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
How much does it cost to retrofit a courtroom?
Judge Jordan is in a long securities fraud trial right now. But that's nothing compared to what he has coming up with the Mutual Benefits case, which is expected to last 8 months. Now, the government has asked to retrofit a courtroom to allow for two juries to preside at the same time because of severance issues. I feel for Judge Jordan on this case.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Reading Administrative Orders on Friday Afternoon
Yes, the exciting life of a federal blogger. (Rumpole, on the other hand, is posting April Fools jokes).
Well, I'm sure you've been waiting on the edge of your seats to find out about the new magistrate pairings. Here they are!
And Judge Torres is up for re-appointment.
Need to have more .... Click here.
Well, I'm sure you've been waiting on the edge of your seats to find out about the new magistrate pairings. Here they are!
And Judge Torres is up for re-appointment.
Need to have more .... Click here.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Quick hits
1. SFL covers Minkow. So does Curt Anderson.
2. The border search exception applies to laptops, even if they take it to a facility 170 miles away.
3. No 11th Circuit en banc review for the health care case.
4. The Bronx Zoo Cobra was caught.
5. Well, if Dr. Drew thinks the airport scans are fine, then I'm sure they are.
2. The border search exception applies to laptops, even if they take it to a facility 170 miles away.
3. No 11th Circuit en banc review for the health care case.
4. The Bronx Zoo Cobra was caught.
5. Well, if Dr. Drew thinks the airport scans are fine, then I'm sure they are.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Former U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta writes letter about Jeffrey Epstein deal and Roy Black responds
Wow, this is getting ugly.
The Daily Beast broke the story here.
And one of Epstein's lawyers, Roy Black, has responded to Acosta's letter (page 1, and page 2, and page 3 here) in the Palm Beach Daily News.
Both letters are truly remarkable, and I've never seen anything like it. From the PBDN:
Attorney Roy Black is disputing claims that he, and other attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein, pried into federal prosecutors’ personal lives in attempting to disqualify them from investigating the billionaire sex offender. Black also denies Epstein’s attorneys “negotiated in bad faith,” while attempting to reach an agreement with federal prosecutors. *** According to Acosta, now dean of the Florida International University College of Law, federal prosecutors and agents met with Black in the summer of 2007. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead guilty to state felony charges resulting in two years imprisonment, registration as a sex offender and restitution for the victims or prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed, Acosta said, was that Epstein’s defense team launched “a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. “I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered,” Acosta said in his letter. Among the “legal superstars” on Epstein’s defense team: Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Acosta said that one member of the defense team warned him “the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter.” Black said he’s never heard anyone mention writing a book about the Epstein case. “Mr. Acosta claims we negotiated in bad faith by appealing to the Department of Justice in Washington,” Black said. “Any person under investigation by a United States attorney, meaning any of the 94 such offices in the country, has the right to seek review by the Department of Justice and it is so provided for in their manual. Thus I cannot imagine invoking this right could be construed as bad faith. “In our system of justice, people are given the right of appeal and there should be no implication of wrong doing by exercising it. “Finally Mr. Acosta mentions we looked for personal peccadilloes of prosecutors,” Black said. “I am not sure what he refers to but this never happened. We did point out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. Not only is there nothing wrong with this but it is a necessary part of the process. There will always be people who abuse the great power of the government and we can not stand by silently when it occurs.”
The Daily Beast broke the story here.
And one of Epstein's lawyers, Roy Black, has responded to Acosta's letter (page 1, and page 2, and page 3 here) in the Palm Beach Daily News.
Both letters are truly remarkable, and I've never seen anything like it. From the PBDN:
Attorney Roy Black is disputing claims that he, and other attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein, pried into federal prosecutors’ personal lives in attempting to disqualify them from investigating the billionaire sex offender. Black also denies Epstein’s attorneys “negotiated in bad faith,” while attempting to reach an agreement with federal prosecutors. *** According to Acosta, now dean of the Florida International University College of Law, federal prosecutors and agents met with Black in the summer of 2007. The prosecutors presented Epstein a choice: plead guilty to state felony charges resulting in two years imprisonment, registration as a sex offender and restitution for the victims or prepare for a federal felony trial. What followed, Acosta said, was that Epstein’s defense team launched “a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors. “I use the word assault intentionally, as the defense in this case was more aggressive than any which I, or the prosecutors in my office, had previously encountered,” Acosta said in his letter. Among the “legal superstars” on Epstein’s defense team: Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz and several others, including prosecutors who had formally worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office and in the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Justice Department. Acosta said that one member of the defense team warned him “the office’s excess zeal in forcing a good man to serve time in jail might be the subject of a book if we continued to proceed with this matter.” Black said he’s never heard anyone mention writing a book about the Epstein case. “Mr. Acosta claims we negotiated in bad faith by appealing to the Department of Justice in Washington,” Black said. “Any person under investigation by a United States attorney, meaning any of the 94 such offices in the country, has the right to seek review by the Department of Justice and it is so provided for in their manual. Thus I cannot imagine invoking this right could be construed as bad faith. “In our system of justice, people are given the right of appeal and there should be no implication of wrong doing by exercising it. “Finally Mr. Acosta mentions we looked for personal peccadilloes of prosecutors,” Black said. “I am not sure what he refers to but this never happened. We did point out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the investigation. Not only is there nothing wrong with this but it is a necessary part of the process. There will always be people who abuse the great power of the government and we can not stand by silently when it occurs.”
Justice Scalia gets ticket in car accident
Apparently he was following a little too closely to the car in front of him:
The accident happened just before 9 a.m. on what was to be a big day for the jurist: The nation’s highest court was hearing arguments in the massive Wal-Mart gender discrimination case. According to U.S. Park Police, Scalia was driving south on the parkway approaching Roosevelt Bridge when he rear-ended a car that had stopped for traffic, triggering a chain reaction. Brooke Salkoff saw it all go down. The former NBC reporter told us she was just behind Scalia’s vehicle, a shiny black BMW in the left lane. “It slammed into the car in front of his, which pushed the other two forward,” and caused them all to skew into the right lane, she said. Now, just as when you're in a fancy restaurant and everyone turns their head to see who walked in, it’s only natural that everyone driving along a major commuter route out of McLean would want to rubberneck at something like this. Salkoff did, as her car inched past, and was rewarded by a surprising glimpse of a familiar face. Scalia was in a dress shirt, no jacket, with an unknotted bowtie hanging around his neck — and, interestingly enough, turned out to be driving himself. The car in front of his appeared pretty badly banged up, the other two less so. Scalia made it to the bench, though, in time for arguments at 10 a.m., a court spokeswoman said. No doubt in Salkoff’s mind that Scalia was at fault, as the driver who failed to brake. “I think that’s an originalist interpretation,” she quipped. Indeed, said the Park Police’s Sgt. David Schlosser, the justice got a ticket for following too closely. Fine: $70, plus a $20 special assessment, or, said Schlosser, “he can contest it in court.”
I volunteer to represent him for free.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Unbelievable
5-4 per Justice Thomas in Connick v. Thompson:
Held: A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation.
One reason given is that lawyers learn enough about Brady from law school and the bar exam. Justice Ginsburg for the dissenters rightfully blasts this: The Court nevertheless holds Canton’s example inapposite. It maintains that professional obligations, ethics rules, and training—including on-the-job training—set attorneys apart from other municipal employees, includingrookie police officers. Ante, at 12–15. Connick “had every incentive at trial to attempt to establish” that he could reasonably rely on the professional education and status of his staff. Cf. ante, at 10, n. 6. But the jury heard and rejected his argument to that effect. Tr. 364, 576–577, 834–835.
The Court advances Connick’s argument with greater clarity, but with no greater support. On what basis can one be confident that law schools acquaint students with prosecutors’ unique obligation under Brady? Whittaker told the jury he did not recall covering Brady in his criminal procedure class in law school. Tr. 335. Dubelier’s alma mater, like most other law faculties, does not make criminal procedure a required course. Connick suggested that the bar examination ensures that new attorneys will know what Brady demands. Tr. 835. Research indicates, however, that from 1980 to the present, Brady questions have not accounted for even 10% of the total points in the criminal law and procedure section of any administration of the Louisiana Bar Examination. A person sitting for the Louisiana Bar Examination, moreover, need pass only five of the exam’s nine sections.23 One can qualify for admission to the professionwith no showing of even passing knowledge of criminal law and procedure.
The majority’s suggestion that lawyers do not need Brady training because they “are equipped with the tools to find, interpret, and apply legal principles,” ante, at 17– 18, “blinks reality” and is belied by the facts of this case. See Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 13. Connick himself recog-nized that his prosecutors, because of their inexperience, were not so equipped. Indeed, “understanding and com-plying with Brady obligations are not easy tasks, and theappropriate way to resolve Brady issues is not always self-evident.” Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 6. “Brady compliance,”therefore, “is too much at risk, and too fundamental to the fairness of our criminal justice system, to be taken for granted,” and “training remains critical.” Id., at 3, 7.
Here's the AP article.
Held: A district attorney’s office may not be held liable under §1983 for failure to train its prosecutors based on a single Brady violation.
One reason given is that lawyers learn enough about Brady from law school and the bar exam. Justice Ginsburg for the dissenters rightfully blasts this: The Court nevertheless holds Canton’s example inapposite. It maintains that professional obligations, ethics rules, and training—including on-the-job training—set attorneys apart from other municipal employees, includingrookie police officers. Ante, at 12–15. Connick “had every incentive at trial to attempt to establish” that he could reasonably rely on the professional education and status of his staff. Cf. ante, at 10, n. 6. But the jury heard and rejected his argument to that effect. Tr. 364, 576–577, 834–835.
The Court advances Connick’s argument with greater clarity, but with no greater support. On what basis can one be confident that law schools acquaint students with prosecutors’ unique obligation under Brady? Whittaker told the jury he did not recall covering Brady in his criminal procedure class in law school. Tr. 335. Dubelier’s alma mater, like most other law faculties, does not make criminal procedure a required course. Connick suggested that the bar examination ensures that new attorneys will know what Brady demands. Tr. 835. Research indicates, however, that from 1980 to the present, Brady questions have not accounted for even 10% of the total points in the criminal law and procedure section of any administration of the Louisiana Bar Examination. A person sitting for the Louisiana Bar Examination, moreover, need pass only five of the exam’s nine sections.23 One can qualify for admission to the professionwith no showing of even passing knowledge of criminal law and procedure.
The majority’s suggestion that lawyers do not need Brady training because they “are equipped with the tools to find, interpret, and apply legal principles,” ante, at 17– 18, “blinks reality” and is belied by the facts of this case. See Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 13. Connick himself recog-nized that his prosecutors, because of their inexperience, were not so equipped. Indeed, “understanding and com-plying with Brady obligations are not easy tasks, and theappropriate way to resolve Brady issues is not always self-evident.” Brief for Former Federal Civil Rights Officials and Prosecutors as Amici Curiae 6. “Brady compliance,”therefore, “is too much at risk, and too fundamental to the fairness of our criminal justice system, to be taken for granted,” and “training remains critical.” Id., at 3, 7.
Here's the AP article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)