Jack Thompson takes on Cheney Mason

For this picture:

While we are on Mr. Mason, here's his closing from the Casey Anthony case. I note his reference to our own Milton Hirsch at the 53 second mark.

Pacenti exposes Zloch story

Well, I was hoping that this story wouldn't leak until after Kathy was confirmed, which is expected any day now.

For the life of me, I don't see how Kathy's use of a lawyer in her office could upset anyone:

When [attorney] Menendez's first year was up, all Williams had was an opening for a research and writing attorney, but she still needed lawyers in the courtroom, according to a May 12, 2010, letter of explanation to Moreno in response to Zloch's criticism. She has explained herself to Moreno, the 11th Circuit committee and the Judiciary Committee.

Moreno wrote the Judiciary Committee, saying he had been advised Zloch "has forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee various documents that he perceives reflect poorly" upon the nominee.

"It is not the role of a judge to opine whether a nominee should be confirmed," Moreno wrote Feb. 15. "However, since Judge Zloch's memorandum to me has been forwarded to your committee, I must respond to your inquiries."

The issue of Menendez's assignment snowballed in a six-week period last year.

Moreno said the use of a research and writing attorney in court presented no ethical problem to any other judge in the Southern District of Florida when the issue was presented at a district judicial conference May 13, 2010. Zloch was absent.

Williams obtained permission from Moreno to allow Menendez to make court appearances and sign pleadings.

Williams said she also went to U.S. District Judges James Cohn and William Dimitrouleas, two of the four district judges serving in Fort Lauderdale. Neither had a problem with Menendez's assignments, she said in the letter to Moreno.

"At this time we do not have the positions available to make him a permanent assistant public defender," she wrote Moreno in July 29, 2009, memo. "I will directly supervise him and assure that his representations are limited."

No one complained -- not the defendant who was represented by the lawyer, not the district judges (other than Zloch), not the 11th Circuit. No one.

Judge Moreno has been a mensch throughout this thing in his support of Kathy:

Moreno wrote the Judiciary Committee in Williams' defense and dismissed Zloch's concern.

"Ms. Williams is an extraordinary administrator, an ethical lawyer and a fine human being," Moreno wrote the Judiciary Committee. "I hope that your committee will likewise dispose of this 'non-issue' quickly as my court presently has three vacancies and Ms. Williams has been nominated to fill one that has been vacant for two years."

Sources say Williams is collateral damage in a long-running feud between Zloch, former chief judge, and his successor, Moreno.

Zloch has refused to attend judicial meetings since Moreno became chief judge, according to one of the letters. He also wrote an unsolicited memo in 2009 urging Moreno to step down to allow U.S. District Judge Donald Graham to become the first black chief judge in the district's history.

The Judiciary Committee had to investigate because Zloch complained, but they have rejected his claim as well. So now it's up to the full Senate. Here's hoping that Kathy gets confirmed quickly and this issue remains dead. In any event, I will let you all comment and give your thoughts about this.

Rojas is back on the 11th Circuit homepage

Very strange. Prior coverage here. And here's the opinion, which still has the June 24 date. Below is a screen shot of the 11th Circuit home page:

UPDATE: The 11th actually issued a revised opinion today with this language starting it off (the link in the initial post above and on the 11th home page is to the old June opinion):

We sua sponte modify our previous opinion in this appeal to reflect recent developments in the law of the First and Seventh Circuits. See United States v.
Fisher, 635 F.3d 336, 340 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Douglas, No. 10-2341,
2011 WL 2120163 (1st Cir. May 31, 2011).

The issue in this appeal is whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (“FSA”), Pub. L. No. 111-220, 124 Stat. 2372 (2010), applies to defendants who committed crack cocaine offenses before August 3, 2010, the date of its enactment, but who are sentenced thereafter. We conclude that it does.

Jury sends note to be read after verdict

No, not in that case...

... but in federal court before Judge William Dimitrouleas after an acquittal in which Bill Matthewman argued that the feds policy of not recording a defendant's alleged confession must be rejected. Below is the note.


VALDEZ.jury Note

Monday baby!

A couple quick items to start off your week:

1. Cameras in the federal courtroooms in the SDFLA! But only in civil cases for now. We are part of a pilot program for 14 districts. From the press release:

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage.

Districts volunteering for the pilot must follow guidelines (pdf) adopted by CACM. The pilot is limited to civil proceedings in which the parties have consented to recording.

No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge, and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. The recordings will be made publicly available on www.uscourts.gov and on local participating court websites at the court's discretion.

The pilot recordings will not be simulcast, but will be made available as soon as possible. The presiding judge can choose to stop a recording if it is necessary, for example, to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses, preserve the dignity of the court, or choose not to post the video for public view. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is prohibited, as is coverage of jurors or alternate jurors.

Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946, and by the Judicial Conference since 1972. In 1996 the Conference rescinded its camera coverage prohibition for courts of appeals, and allowed each appellate court discretion to permit broadcasting of oral arguments. To date, two courts of appeals—the Second and the Ninth—allow such coverage. In the early 1990s the Judicial Conference conducted a pilot program permitting electronic media coverage of civil proceeding in six district courts and two courts of appeals.

As I have previously argued on this blog, I see no good reason why cameras shouldn't be allowed in federal court. The public should see what goes on in our courthouses...

2. The NY Times reviews the Supreme Court Term that just concluded. Justice Kennedy was in the majority more than any other Justice, 94% of the time, followed by the Chief Justice, 91%. Ginsburg brought up the rear.

3. Curt Anderson covers the interesting lawsuit between NASA and former astronaut Edgar Mitchell:

NASA is suing former astronaut Edgar Mitchell to get back a camera that went to the moon on the Apollo 14 mission — a historic device Mitchell apparently tried to sell recently at an auction.

The lawsuit filed in federal court contends that the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera is NASA's property and there are no records showing it was transferred to Mitchell. NASA calls Mitchell, one of only 12 humans to walk the lunar surface, "a former NASA employee who is exercising improper dominion and control" over the camera.

"The United States has made numerous requests to defendant and defendant's counsel for return of the NASA camera to no avail," Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Macchiaroli wrote in the lawsuit filed Thursday.

"All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party," Macchiaroli added.

Mitchell, 80, has a home in the Lake Worth, just south of West Palm Beach, but a phone listing for him was disconnected. His attorney did not immediately respond to a phone message and email. A message was also left with the Institute of Noetic Sciences, which Mitchell founded in 1972 as an organization dedicated to exploring mysteries of the human mind and universe.

NASA contends in the lawsuit that it learned in March that the British auction house Bonhams was planning a "Space History Sale" that included an item labeled "movie camera from the lunar surface." Bonhams also provided a more detailed technical description and four photos of the camera.

The item, according to the auction house description, "came directly from the collection of Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell." The camera was one of two that went to the moon's surface on the mission, during which Mitchell and Alan Shepard spent about nine hours collecting 95 pounds of lunar samples.

Happy Birthday to the blog!

The Southern District of Florida Blog was launched July 4th weekend 2005 with this post. Six years later, this is the 1,863 post. The blog is averaging over 500 visitors a day.

I just wanted to thank all of you (defense lawyers, prosecutors, judges, civil lawyers, and others) for stopping by and reading, and for emailing me tips. The blog wouldn't work without you.

This is the most fun district in the country -- we have the best cases, the most trials, and the most interesting stories.

Have a great 4th of July weekend.

Thanks,

--David Oscar Markus

Judge Cooke finds 300+ year mandatory sentence for juvenile unconstitutional

Here's the money passage:

Here, Mathurin faces a mandatory minimum 307-year sentence. Because Congress has abolished the federal parole system, this sentence gives Mathurin no possibility of release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. A significant portion of this sentence is comprised of mandatory 25-year consecutive sentences required under § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides:

[N]o term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed on the person, including any term of imprisonment imposed for the crime of violence or drug trafficking crime during which the firearm was used, carried, or possessed.

Under Graham, this provision of § 924(c)(1)(D) is unconstitutional as applied to Mathurin, a juvenile offender convicted of non-homicide offenses. To apply the statute in accordance with the Eighth Amendment, severance of the constitutionally offensive portion of § 924(c)(1)(D) is necessary.

Judge Cooke ends up finding the rest of the statute can be saved and sentences James Mathurin to 40 years in prison, meaning he will get out in his 50s, instead of spending the rest of his life in jail. Here's the entire order.

Cooke Finds Sentence Unconstitutional

Vanishing precedent

Rojas isn’t gone only from the Eleventh Circuit’s website. It’s gone from Westlaw and apparently everywhere else as well. The Federal Public Defender has been fielding requests for copies of the mysteriously vanished decision. Here it is:
Rojas