Justice Scalia calls other justices insane

I just love it. From his dissent today in Sykes v. United States:

JUSTICE SCALIA, dissenting.
As the Court's opinion acknowledges, this case is “an-other in a series,” ante, at 1. More specifically, it is an at-tempt to clarify, for the fourth time since 2007, whatdistinguishes “violent felonies” under the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U. S. C.§924(e)(2)(B)(ii), from other crimes. See James v. United States, 550 U. S. 192 (2007); Begay v. United States, 553
U. S. 137 (2008); Chambers v. United States, 555 U. S. 122 (2009). We try to include an ACCA residual-clause case inabout every second or third volume of the United States Reports.

As was perhaps predictable, instead of producing a clar-ification of the Delphic residual clause, today’s opinion produces a fourth ad hoc judgment that will sow further confusion. Insanity, it has been said, is doing the samething over and over again, but expecting different results. Four times is enough. We should admit that ACCA’s residual provision is a drafting failure and declare it void for vagueness. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983).
***
We face a Congress that puts forth an ever-increasing volume of laws in general, and of criminal laws in particular. It should be no surprise that as the volume increases, so do the number of imprecise laws. And no surprise that our indulgence of imprecisions that violate the Constitution encourages imprecisions that violate the Constitution. Fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts legislation is attractive to the Congressman who wants credit for addressing a national problem but does not have the time (or perhaps the votes) to grapple with the nittygritty. In the field of criminal law, at least, it is time to call a halt. I do not think it would be a radical step — indeed, I think it would be highly responsible — to limit ACCA to the named violent crimes. Congress can quickly add what it wishes. Because the majority prefers to let vagueness reign, I respectfully dissent.

One year anniversary of Scott Rothstein's plea

Yup, it's been a whole year since he pled guilty.

Rule 35 requires prosecutors to file a motion to reduce a defendant's sentence based on cooperation withing one year. Well, they just got it in, filing the motion to reduce the 50 year sentence yesterday. The government didn't ask for a specific amount of time off of the sentence. So we will have to wait to see what kind of reduction Rothstein gets.

Any predictions?

Quick news and notes for out of town cases

1. Barzee and Pettus are still waiting for a verdict.

2. Another out of town trial -- Matt Menchel is fighting the feds in DC. He is crossing the case agent. From Law360:

Attorneys for four military equipment company executives accused of trying to bribe Gabon government ministers to win contracts sought to undercut the government’s chief informant in the case in Washington federal court Tuesday, alluding to his past appetites for drugs and prostitutes.

Federal Bureau of Investigations agent Christopher Forvour, the lead case agent for the FBI’s sting operation, admitted to Matthew Menchel, attorney for defendant Pankesh Patel, that the FBI knew about informant Richard Bistrong’s previous habits of using cocaine and frequenting prostitutes, which predated his time as an informant.

3. Miamian Nevin Shapiro got 20 years in New Jersey for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme.

4. Health care is being argued in Atlanta today.

"It just works."

Apple announced its upcoming iCloud service yesterday. This is great news for those of you who live on or frequent Miami Beach. Soon, when the police smash your phone to avoid public scrutiny and accountability, you won't have to preserve the evidence by sticking the SIM card in your mouth. Your iPhone will automatically upload the gunplay and mayhem and send it to your iPad and MacBook. We live in wondrous times.

Cert denied for Wesley Snipes

Via AP:

The high court refused Monday to hear an appeal from Snipes, convicted in 2008 on three misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file income tax returns.

Snipes started a three-year term in a federal minimum security prison in December. He has appeared in dozens of films, from "White Men Can't Jump" and "Demolition Man" in the early 1990s to the blockbuster Blade trilogy.

Snipes wanted his trial held in New York City, where he says he lived, but the government brought charges against him in Florida, where Snipes held a driver's license. The lower courts refused to let him have an evidentiary hearing on this issue.

Your Monday Morning moment of Zen

John Edwards indicted by former AUSA in Miami

Jeff Tsai was one of the five lawyers who signed the 19-page indictment against Edwards. Tsai is now at the public integrity section at DOJ in DC.

I like Jeff, and he was one of best dressed lawyers in the USAO, but I think the indictment is one of the weakest I have ever read. It will be interesting to see how it develops. I'm happy that Edwards is fighting it and that he didn't plead.

Barzee, Pettus still waiting for verdict

The jury in the SDNY insider trading case is apparently sending all kinds of notes, asking for definitions of terms and other itmes. Bill Barzee and "Country Dave" Pettus have to just sit and wait and it's not easy. Fridays are always the toughest day waiting for a verdict. You don't want the jury to feel rushed, but the weekends are always difficult for not guilty verdicts. Here's the latest article, which basically says the jury is deliberating.

You wanna be a federal judge? Read this. "The Path to the Federal Bench" sets out the basic process. Here's my favorite part:

Finally, a word to the wise: Before you are nominated to the federal
bench, you will be subjected to an FBI background check. Have you
ever committed a crime? Failed to pay your taxes? Been embroiled in a
scandal? Staffers from the Department of Justice will likely read
everything you have ever written and will interview members of your
community to determine if you are an appropriate candidate for the
bench. In evaluating your qualifications, subject yourself to The “New
York Times test,” i.e., if anything in your past would embarrass you or—
perhaps more importantly—the president or your home state senators
if it showed up on the front page of The New York Times, then perhaps
pursuing a federal judgeship is not for you.