Awesomeness

The Daily Show - The Forecloser
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

New magistrate short list in WPB

The cut has been made and there are 10 finalists for two spots. It's very hush-hush though, and I only have a partial list. Come on tipsters, give me more. Here's what I have so far:

Carolyn Bell (AUSA)
Dave Brannon (AFPD)
Kim Dunn-Abel (AUSA)
Bill Matthewman
Jeremy Slusher
Bob Waters (AUSA)
Wendy Zoberman

There are a bunch of magistrate positions that are open in the District, so the Chief entered an intersting order precluding applicants from lobbying District Judges. Good move.

Fantasy Football anyone?

Having won last year, I'm retiring. But Miguel de la O needs a title and the league needs one more team before tomorrow night. First come, first serve. Here's the info for joining

League ID#: 552661
League Name: SDFLA Fantasy Football
Password: markusquit
Custom League URL: http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/league/sdfla

Draft Type: Live Standard Draft
Draft Time: Wed Aug 31 10:30pm EDT

Judge Jordan's application

Judge Jordan's nomination is, by all accounts, moving quickly towards confirmation. Here is his Senate questionnaire (which is unbelievably onerous and long):

Judge Jordan's CA11 Questionnaire

If you aren't interested in that sort of thing, here is the trailer for the new Hunger Games movie coming out in the spring. Go Katniss!

Get More: 2011 VMA, Music

Have a nice weekend

Nothing really going on today in Miami, so I apologize for the slow blogging...

Anyway, here are some pictures I snapped on the way to lunch today in downtown:

Cool feeder band picture from tipster

11th Circuit considers Liberty City Seven

Jay Weaver has the details about this interesting issue:

The judge’s removal of a woman from the federal jury in one of the nation’s most controversial terrorism trials dominated oral arguments Tuesday, in the appeal of five Miami men convicted of conspiring to aid al-Qaida.

The unidentified woman, known only as Juror No. 4, was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard after deliberating for nearly three days in late April 2009 because the other 11 jurors said she refused to discuss the fate of the remaining defendants in a group originally dubbed the “Liberty City Seven.’’

The ruling led to the juror’s replacement by an alternate juror, a man, and the eventual conviction of the five defendants on material-support conspiracy charges. One other defendant was acquitted.

The removal of Juror No. 4 from the 12-person panel carried great consequences.

Had she been allowed to hold out as the minority juror, prompting a third mistrial in the controversial case, the five defendants could have walked out of the courtroom free, because the U.S. attorney’s office had already said it wouldn’t try them a fourth time.

Defense lawyers said Tuesday that Lenard made a major error about Juror No. 4 that should compel the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out the convictions and order a new trial. A decision could take months.

Juror No. 4 “goes in there and makes up her mind,” said attorney Ana Jhones, who represented the ringleader in the Liberty City group. “Does that mean she’s not deliberating? There is evidence that Juror No. 4 was, in fact, deliberating.”

She also said the woman was intimidated by the foreman in the jury room.

But a prosecutor with the U.S. attorney’s office disagreed.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Colan said Juror No. 4 indicated to a courtroom deputy even before the start of deliberations that she didn’t want to discuss the evidence. She just wanted to express her opinion.

“Every other juror [questioned by the judge] gave consistent testimony that she turned her back and wouldn’t follow the law,” Colan said.

The convictions of the five men followed two earlier mistrials, which had resulted in the acquittal of one other defendant.

I'm back

I go to court for a few days, and the good professor decides to blog about "tense present." Rick, don't you realize that the readers of this blog prefer motions discussing phallic imagery? This is what they want. BTW, I'm wondering how our district judges would react to such a motion.