| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Moment of Zen - Anderson Cooper Cracks Up | ||||
| ||||
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, August 22, 2011
Slow blogging today
Your friendly neighborhood blogger is in court today, so I won't have much on the web until much later. Until then, your moment of zen:
Friday, August 19, 2011
Defense Verdicts of the Week
The USAO is very good at issuing press releases when there is an arrest or a conviction. Not so much when there is an acquittal. And there were some acquittals and a hung jury this week:
1. Sabrina Puglisi and Margot Moss got a not guilty before Judge Jordan in a drug case in which their client testified.*
2. AFPDs Aimee Ferrer and Jan Smith won before Judge Seitz in a gun case.
3. AFPD Miguel Caridad and David Joffe hung a jury before Judge Cooke. Apparently, Joffe's client originally pled guilty but was permitted to withdraw the plea and now is going for round 2.
*Full disclosure -- I share space with Sabrina and Margot is my law partner.
1. Sabrina Puglisi and Margot Moss got a not guilty before Judge Jordan in a drug case in which their client testified.*
2. AFPDs Aimee Ferrer and Jan Smith won before Judge Seitz in a gun case.
3. AFPD Miguel Caridad and David Joffe hung a jury before Judge Cooke. Apparently, Joffe's client originally pled guilty but was permitted to withdraw the plea and now is going for round 2.
*Full disclosure -- I share space with Sabrina and Margot is my law partner.
Judge makes mistake and goes after criminal defense lawyer
This story really amazes me:
This investigation reminds me of the old F. Lee Bailey quote after he was charged with mail fraud: In England, a criminal defense lawyer is apt to be knighted, in America, he is apt to be indicted.
This is especially true where the criminal defense lawyer is representing an unpopular defendant like Casey. The Florida Bar should quickly clear Jose Baez.
At issue: Anthony pleaded guilty to 13 charges in a check fraud case in January 2010. Judge Stan Strickland sentenced her to time-served in jail, and a year of probation after her jail release.
But last month, when Anthony was acquitted of murder and released from the Orange County Jail, she wasn't put on probation. The Department of Corrections said Anthony served that probation in jail while she was awaiting the murder trial.
Soon after her release, Strickland amended his original order clarifying his intentions, which were clear in video and transcripts from the January 2010 sentencing.
Anthony's defense team objected, and Perry heard arguments from attorneys earlier this month.
Perry asked the defense team if they knew Anthony was serving her probation while she was in jail. One of Anthony's attorneys admitted that they did, but didn't think it was their burden to notify the court.
Perry eventually issued an order stating Anthony does have to report to probation.
In that order, Perry took up the issue with the attorneys too, saying that, "the failure to abide by that order and the failure to notify the court of a known scrivener's error in the order may be a violation of an attorney's duty of candor."
"No attorney should conduct himself or herself in a way that impedes an order of the court. ... Our system of justice should never be in the position of rewarding someone who willfully hides the ball."
This investigation reminds me of the old F. Lee Bailey quote after he was charged with mail fraud: In England, a criminal defense lawyer is apt to be knighted, in America, he is apt to be indicted.
This is especially true where the criminal defense lawyer is representing an unpopular defendant like Casey. The Florida Bar should quickly clear Jose Baez.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Judge Milton Hirsch finds Florida drug law unconstitutional
Milt Hirsch wrote a compelling (and very entertaining) order finding Florida's drug statute unconstitutional, following the decision in Shelton. The whole order is worth a read. Here is the intro and conclusion, and a link to the whole order at the bottom:
"[F]or there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
--William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act II sc. 2
I. Introduction
The 39 defendants captioned above are similarly circumstanced in that all are charged with violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13. In light of the recent decision in Shelton v. Department of Corrections, No. 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011), finding '893.13 unconstitutional, all defendants move for dismissal. I have consolidated these cases for purposes of these motions only.
Shelton has produced a category-five hurricane in the Florida criminal practice community. A storm-surge of pretrial motions (such as those at bar) must surely follow. It is, therefore, essential that I adjudicate the present motions promptly. This order has been written in great haste and under great time pressure. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said: "If I'd had more time, I could have written you a shorter letter."
***
V. Conclusion
The immediate effect of the present order is the dismissal of charges against all movants – the overwhelming majority of whom may have known perfectly well that their acts of possession or delivery were contrary to law. Viewed in that light, these movants are unworthy, utterly unworthy, of this windfall exoneration. But as no less a constitutional scholar than Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, "It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 597 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Like the court in Shelton, I find that Florida Statute § 893.13 is facially violative of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, accordingly, that any prosecution brought pursuant to that statute is subject to dismissal.
In the comments the other day, there was a discussion about whether Shelton was binding. Judge Hirsch has a lot to say about that, including this conclusion:
In the absence of such particularization I am obliged as a Florida trial court to presume that Florida appellate courts relied upon a Florida-law-based guarantee of due process, whether constitutional or common-law. No Florida case has decided the issue presently before me: whether '893.13 is unconstitutional by operation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Shelton court reached the same conclusion: A[N]o Florida appellate [court] ... has addressed the constitutionality of ['893.13] under the federal Constitution,@ Shelton, 2011 WL 3236040, at *12; and the Florida cases that appear to give passing consideration to the issue of the constitutionality or not of the statute Acontain no analysis of or citation to the tripartite constitutional analysis@ required by Staples and other U.S. Supreme Court authorities, and employed in Shelton. Id. See also supra note 3. Accordingly, I am bound to follow Shelton=s holding that '893.13 violates the 14th Amendment=s due process guarantee.
Hirsch Order
"[F]or there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
--William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act II sc. 2
I. Introduction
The 39 defendants captioned above are similarly circumstanced in that all are charged with violation of Fla. Stat. § 893.13. In light of the recent decision in Shelton v. Department of Corrections, No. 6:07-cv-839-Orl-35-KRS, 2011 WL 3236040 (M.D. Fla. July 27, 2011), finding '893.13 unconstitutional, all defendants move for dismissal. I have consolidated these cases for purposes of these motions only.
Shelton has produced a category-five hurricane in the Florida criminal practice community. A storm-surge of pretrial motions (such as those at bar) must surely follow. It is, therefore, essential that I adjudicate the present motions promptly. This order has been written in great haste and under great time pressure. As Mark Twain is alleged to have said: "If I'd had more time, I could have written you a shorter letter."
***
V. Conclusion
The immediate effect of the present order is the dismissal of charges against all movants – the overwhelming majority of whom may have known perfectly well that their acts of possession or delivery were contrary to law. Viewed in that light, these movants are unworthy, utterly unworthy, of this windfall exoneration. But as no less a constitutional scholar than Justice Felix Frankfurter observed, "It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582, 597 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
Like the court in Shelton, I find that Florida Statute § 893.13 is facially violative of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, accordingly, that any prosecution brought pursuant to that statute is subject to dismissal.
In the comments the other day, there was a discussion about whether Shelton was binding. Judge Hirsch has a lot to say about that, including this conclusion:
In the absence of such particularization I am obliged as a Florida trial court to presume that Florida appellate courts relied upon a Florida-law-based guarantee of due process, whether constitutional or common-law. No Florida case has decided the issue presently before me: whether '893.13 is unconstitutional by operation of the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Shelton court reached the same conclusion: A[N]o Florida appellate [court] ... has addressed the constitutionality of ['893.13] under the federal Constitution,@ Shelton, 2011 WL 3236040, at *12; and the Florida cases that appear to give passing consideration to the issue of the constitutionality or not of the statute Acontain no analysis of or citation to the tripartite constitutional analysis@ required by Staples and other U.S. Supreme Court authorities, and employed in Shelton. Id. See also supra note 3. Accordingly, I am bound to follow Shelton=s holding that '893.13 violates the 14th Amendment=s due process guarantee.
Hirsch Order
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
11th Circuit discusses THUG MANSION
Per Judge Carnes:
This appeal stems from a violent drug conspiracy in South Florida that involved a number of criminals, most of whom have aliases or nicknames. The four whose joint trial led to this appeal were Daniel “D.V.” Varela, Liana “The Negra” Lopez, Ricardo “Rick” Sanchez, and Daniel “Homer” Troya. Showing a keen appreciation for their own character, they referred to the townhouse where they lived as the “Thug Mansion.” During their crime wave two of the self-styled thugs, Troya and Sanchez, carjacked a fellow drug dealer and shot him to death. What would have been unfortunate became triply tragic when they also gunned down the drug dealer’s wife and their two children, ages three and four. Troya and Sanchez left all four bodies on the side of the road.
The ensuing police investigation led to the Thug Mansion, which was located in a gated residential community. Officers executed a search warrant there and found evidence of the murder and the on-going drug conspiracy. An indictment and two superseding indictments followed, and then a trial at which the four defendants were convicted on all counts. Lopez and Varela, who brought this appeal, raise several issues, the primary one being that they should not have been jointly tried with Troya and Sanchez, who committed the murders. (Sanchez and Troya were convicted of those murders and sentenced to death, and they have filed appeals that are proceeding separately from this one.)
Who wants to guess how this one came out?
Here's Tupac discussing "Thugz Mansion" (NSFW):
This appeal stems from a violent drug conspiracy in South Florida that involved a number of criminals, most of whom have aliases or nicknames. The four whose joint trial led to this appeal were Daniel “D.V.” Varela, Liana “The Negra” Lopez, Ricardo “Rick” Sanchez, and Daniel “Homer” Troya. Showing a keen appreciation for their own character, they referred to the townhouse where they lived as the “Thug Mansion.” During their crime wave two of the self-styled thugs, Troya and Sanchez, carjacked a fellow drug dealer and shot him to death. What would have been unfortunate became triply tragic when they also gunned down the drug dealer’s wife and their two children, ages three and four. Troya and Sanchez left all four bodies on the side of the road.
The ensuing police investigation led to the Thug Mansion, which was located in a gated residential community. Officers executed a search warrant there and found evidence of the murder and the on-going drug conspiracy. An indictment and two superseding indictments followed, and then a trial at which the four defendants were convicted on all counts. Lopez and Varela, who brought this appeal, raise several issues, the primary one being that they should not have been jointly tried with Troya and Sanchez, who committed the murders. (Sanchez and Troya were convicted of those murders and sentenced to death, and they have filed appeals that are proceeding separately from this one.)
Who wants to guess how this one came out?
Here's Tupac discussing "Thugz Mansion" (NSFW):
Monday, August 15, 2011
Back to work
Thanks to Rick for his excellent blogging, as usual.
A few items to start the week:
1. Enjoy the last week before school starts on the 22nd. Then back to parking-lot traffic. Ugh. (btw, shouldn't school start after Labor Day?)
2. In case you didn't see it, the Eleventh Circuit held 2-1 that President Obama's healthcare legislation was unconstitutional. Judges Dubina and Hull wrote a "joint opinion" and Judge Marcus dissented. Let's see what the Supremes do.
3. Florida state judges are saying (via Miami Herald) that they aren't bound by a federal judge's decision that the Florida drug statute is unconstitutional. I'm hearing that the same thing is occurring with Judge Martinez's order on the Florida death penalty -- state judges are saying that they aren't bound by the decision. But aren't they under the Supremacy Clause? Isn't this what federal habaes is all about? If state judges can just respond -- well, that's nice, but we'll decide what our state law says -- then why have habeas at all?
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Summer speaking
Lots of Supreme Court Justices speaking this summer in really nice places. The latest are Justices Roberts and Kagan.
Justice Roberts has a rule about not speaking while on vacation, but he broke it and spoke in Maine:
"When judges or justices speak in court, there's a good chance we will disappoint half of the people who appear before us. When we speak in public, we have a good chance of disappointing everyone," Roberts said. "Despite that clear and present danger, I was happy to accept your kind invitation to visit this afternoon."
***
Roberts said that while he appreciates the efficiency of the information age, he worries that modern methods of legal research could make it easier to confuse the collection of information with the acquisition of knowledge.
"I hope that the generations that follow will get a chance to experience learning in the enriching environment of a real library and not just a virtual one – a library where you feel connected to knowledge in a very tangible way and also connected to those working alongside you in a similar pursuit for knowledge," he said, "even if they're representing an adversary or even if they're working for a judge who will decide your case."
And Justice Kagan spoke in Aspen:
“I think this comes as a surprise to many people when I talk about my experiences on the court, and to me as well,” Kagan said during a conversation in the Greenwald Pavilion at the Aspen Institute. “You know you read the court's decisions, and often there's some pretty sharp give-and-take: people accusing other justices on the other side [of the issue] of a wide variety of terrible conduct.”
“The truth is, it is an incredibly collegial and warm institution, with good friendships throughout the court and across whatever people think of as ideological divides, and that was the nicest feature of joining the court, was feeling that,” she said. “And how well and respectfully the members of the institution operate together.”
Justice Roberts has a rule about not speaking while on vacation, but he broke it and spoke in Maine:
"When judges or justices speak in court, there's a good chance we will disappoint half of the people who appear before us. When we speak in public, we have a good chance of disappointing everyone," Roberts said. "Despite that clear and present danger, I was happy to accept your kind invitation to visit this afternoon."
***
Roberts said that while he appreciates the efficiency of the information age, he worries that modern methods of legal research could make it easier to confuse the collection of information with the acquisition of knowledge.
"I hope that the generations that follow will get a chance to experience learning in the enriching environment of a real library and not just a virtual one – a library where you feel connected to knowledge in a very tangible way and also connected to those working alongside you in a similar pursuit for knowledge," he said, "even if they're representing an adversary or even if they're working for a judge who will decide your case."
And Justice Kagan spoke in Aspen:
“I think this comes as a surprise to many people when I talk about my experiences on the court, and to me as well,” Kagan said during a conversation in the Greenwald Pavilion at the Aspen Institute. “You know you read the court's decisions, and often there's some pretty sharp give-and-take: people accusing other justices on the other side [of the issue] of a wide variety of terrible conduct.”
“The truth is, it is an incredibly collegial and warm institution, with good friendships throughout the court and across whatever people think of as ideological divides, and that was the nicest feature of joining the court, was feeling that,” she said. “And how well and respectfully the members of the institution operate together.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)