One judge to another during oral argument: "Shut up."

Remember the tiff between Judges Sparks and Jones over the Kindergarten email sent to lawyers. Well, Judge Jones is in the news again over judicial demeanor and ethics. Above The Law has the whole story and it's a doozy. This time, Judge Jones goes at it with Judge Dennis during an oral argument (here's the recording). Here's the transcript, prepared by ABT:

MR. TURNER: I think the amount of drugs in that truck supports the intent to distribute. And the jury….

JUDGE DENNIS: Well, we’ve said over and over that the amount…. this court, no court has said that you can infer….

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Judge Dennis….

JUDGE DENNIS: … just on the basis of the amount of drugs …

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Judge Dennis!

JUDGE DENNIS: Can I, can I, can I ask a question?

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: You have monopolized, uh, uh, seven minutes….

JUDGE DENNIS: Well, I’m way behind on asking questions in this court. I have been quiet a lot of times, and I am involved in this case….

CHIEF JUDGE JONES slams her hand down on the table (loudly), stands halfway up out of her chair, and points toward the door.

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Would you like to leave?

JUDGE DENNIS: Pardon? What did you say?

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: I want you to shut up long enough for me to suggest that perhaps….

JUDGE DENNIS: Don’t tell me to shut up….

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: … you should give some other judge a chance to ask a question …

JUDGE DENNIS: Listen, I have been in this courtroom many times and gotten closed out and not able to ask a question. I don’t think I’m being overbearing….

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: You’ve been asking questions for the entire seven minutes….

JUDGE DENNIS: Well, I happen to be through. I have no more questions.

CHIEF JUDGE JONES: I just want to offer any other judge an opportunity to ask a question. Some may support your position. If nobody else chooses to ask a question, then please go forward.

RANDOM FEMALE JUDGE WHO IS NOT EDITH JONES (timidly): I would like to ask a question about the necessity for a Sears instruction….

Yikes.

Summary

Lots of news the last few days...

-- New Federal Judges being vetted (Thornton & Rosenbaum)
-- Huge sentences for Medicare fraudsters
-- Judge Jordan's confirmation hearing was today
-- Hung jury after a long mortgage fraud trial (happy for Michael Walsh after how the case began for him)
-- Padilla case decided 2-1

Here's a little more:

-- Pacenti reports on a case in which Nevin Shapiro testified but the defense was not made aware of the pending investigation against him;

-- The NY Times covers the question of whether jurors should be required to sign a pledge under penalties of perjury that they won't search the internet about the case while sitting as jurors, while the NY Post asks whether a prosecutor can work as a dominatrix.

-- I know the feds like to keep lawyers at the podium, but this may be a bit too far -- a judge has given authority to marshals to in their discretion SHOCK a lawyer representing himself if he strays from the podium. An anklet has been installed that will administer the shock. Seriously.

Mistrial in 4 month long mortgage fraud trial

This was trial #2 in the cop mortgage fraud trial, where trial #1 resulted in 4 of the 6 defendants being acquitted. For the second group of defendants, the jury hung, and I'm told it was 10-2 for acquittal. I feel for Judge Cohn, the defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors. This was an excruciatingly long trial. Is the government going to retry these defendants? As I've said before, I don't think retrials in cases like these are appropriate:

I'm not sure why a prosecutor should be able to retry a case after he couldn't convince a jury to convict. Isn't that reasonable doubt? To force someone to defend against two federal trials is impossible in every way -- financially and emotionally. The government had its shot in what was a controversial prosecution. Now time to go after a real criminal.

11th Circuit decides Padilla case 2-1

Here is the opinion .

Judge Dubina writes the majority, which Judge Pryor joins, affirming the conviction and reversing Jose Padilla's 17 year sentence as too low. Judge Barkett dissents on both the conviction and sentencing holdings. In total, there are 120 pages of opinions. This case seems destined for Supreme Court review.

More to follow...

BREAKING -- Rumors regarding district judge openings UPDATE -- Rumors confirmed!

Well, this wouldn't be printed if it were a newspaper or a legitimate publication, but because this is a blog, and I trust my sources, I am going to post the rumor that is being whispered about around town. Again, this isn't confirmed, but if it's being discussed at La Loggia, it can be discussed here too.

As we all know, 4 names were sent up by the JNC to fill Judge Gold's seat. Apparently, the White House is vetting two of those names, John Thornton and Robin Rosenbaum -- one to fill Judge Gold's seat and one to fill Judge Jordan's seat (see below; his confirmation hearing is next week).

If the rumor is true, congrats to Judges Thornton and Rosenbaum!

If anyone out there can confirm or refute this rumor, please email me and it will remain anonymous. Thanks.

UPDATED -- It's confirmed. Congratulations to Judge Thornton and Judge Rosenbaum! Here's hoping that the President and Senate move quickly.

Judge Jordan's confirmation hearing next week

It's set for Tuesday, September 20. That was quick -- Well done to the adminsitration for moving this nomination forward. After his hearing, then he will get written questions from the committee and then there will be a vote. Looks like Judge Jordan may be on the 11th by sometime in November.

Now we need to get Bob Scola confirmed. He is #19 on the list of district judges waiting confirmation, so if they do a few per week, we are looking at October for Judge Scola.

Things are starting to move, which is nice.

Big shout out to Dore Louis for his posting over the past two days. Good stuff.

Great Ruling on Strange Issue

By guest blogger, Dore Louis

Judge Cooke has just issued an Order in an interesting matter.

In July of this year, Governor Scott signed into law Fla. Stat. § 790.338, which contained a few odd provisions. Basically, the statute provided a basis to impose sanctions upon a doctor or health care provider who asks a patient about gun ownership or otherwise discriminates against a patient because of gun ownership.

"According to the State’s legislative findings, the State passed the law in reaction to an incident in Ocala, Florida, where a physician advised the mother of a minor patient that she had thirty days to find a new pediatrician after the mother refused to answer questions about firearms in her home."

Governor Scott is our Tea Party Governor. Big free market ideas...'let the market sort it out, government shouldn't be telling us what to do, etc.'; so it seems odd to me that he would sign into law a regulation that mandates a physician treat a patient who that physician does not want to treat because he/she owns a gun. Free market theory would instruct that if there are enough gun owners in the marketplace, the physician will either change his/her ways or go out of business.

Turns out the reason the pediatrician was doing what he/she did, was because the American Academy of Pediatrics counsels physicians to give guidance on gun safety. We don't want kids like this walking around, no matter how cute they are.



But why should politics make sense? Thankfully, Judge Cooke is able, through her thoughtful order, to make sense of subjects I was not particularly good at in Law School - First Amendment and Preliminary Injunction Law. What are those standards?

"At issue in this litigation is a law directed at maintaining patients’ privacy rights regarding firearm ownership within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. In effect, however, the law curtails practitioners’ ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients, under certain circumstances. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act thus implicates practitioners’ First Amendment rights of free speech. The Act also implicates patients’ freedom to receive information about firearm safety, which the First Amendment protects."

...

"The State has attempted to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case. Despite the State’s insistence that the right to “keep arms” is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights. The right to keep arms refers to the right to “retain,” “to have in custody,” and “to hold” weapons, including firearms."

...

"I will not speak to the wisdom of the legislation now before me. Questions of a law’s constitutionality do not create “a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). The First Amendment, however, “was not designed to facilitate legislation,” whether wise or not. FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 503 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring). Based on the foregoing, I find that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional challenge."

...

"Each of the factors for a preliminary injunction weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. For that reason, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The State is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6). The State is also preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(8), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1) and (2) constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The State is further preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 456.072(1)(mm), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6) shall constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions specified under § 456.072(2) may be taken."

I am a bit saddened that there were no Yosemite Sam references. Here is the Order.

Wollschlaeger Order

Federalist Society Panel

By Guest Blogger, Dore Louis

Last night the Federalist Society hosted an event at the Banker's Club entitled "War Zone or Crime Scene: Walking the Tightrope of Justice Ten Years After September 11th."

The panel included every person who held the position of US Attorney since 9/11 - Guy Lewis, Marcos Jimenez, Alex Acosta, Jeff Sloman, Wilfredo Ferrer, and acting Federal Public Defender Michael Caruso, who proved a bit elusive to the camera. Neal Sonnet moderated.


The night included everything one might expect a Federalist Society event to have: a well-stocked bar and plenty of time to mingle; a book co-authored by John Yoo, gifted to the panel members; a regional CIA recruiter mingling with the guests (no joke); Marshals to protect the dignitaries; and, the obligatory "Osama"...oops..."I sometimes say "Obama"" joke by a panelist.

All in all, it looked as if it was going to be a 'hanging jury' for Michael. As anybody who knows Michael would expect, Michael shined.

The discussion was very interesting and quite non-partisan. Essentially, it was a walk trough the history of the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida, from 9/11 onwards. Michael did a great job adding color to the other side of the equation - bringing home the impact that ramped up prosecutions for offenses such as routine immigration violations or the effects prolonged isolated confinement have on people.

Guy Lewis led off. He talked about how he and other members of the office sat watching the terrorist attacks unfold on 9/11 and the eerie "radio silence" that prevailed from DOJ during the attacks. 16 of the 19 hijackers had either lived in the Southern District or otherwise had connections here, and they were simply not on the radar. The day after 9/11 GL convened a meeting of federal and local law enforcement and began to redirect the priority of the office from prosecution of offenses such as violent crime, cyber crime and money laundering to the prosecution and prevention of terrorism.

Marcos Jimenez took over after GL left to D.C., and one of his first impressions was how much the office changed from when he had been a AUSA. MJ really gave the audience a good feel for how much pressure a US Attorney feels while in the office, including the fear that his efforts would not be enough to prevent an attack from happening. MJ specifically mentioned port security and the nightmare scenario that something would happen on a cruse ship, and bunch of people would get killed and he would have "egg on his face."

Other than Michael (who I admit to being partisan to and who will always have my vote), Dean Alex Acosta was the most impressive speaker of the night. I did not realize what an intellectual the guy is. AA gave a terrific overview of military tribunals in the United States, going back to Nazi spies in the beginning of WWII. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies the government pursued post-9/11, it is very apparent that AA had thoroughly thought through the legal basis for the actions taken, and would be able to provide justification for each and every one. Frankly, if AA presents like this always, I fully expect to be calling him Judge in the future - if that is what he is after.

Jeff Sloman, who had been involved in terrorism prosecutions and investigations before 9/11, spoke to a concern that was raised by MJ. Radicalized people who are willing to die for a cause. Such concerns led to cases such as the Liberty City 7 case, that were targeted at neutralizing threats before they became capable of carrying out a terrorist act.

Willy Ferrer was obviously more constrained in what he could say because he is the current US Attorney - he was able to provide statistics and a broad overview of efforts that are ongoing to prevent terrorist acts. But what WF said that struck me most, was the mention of his law school class mate - Geoffrey Cloud, who went to work in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and was killed in the attacks.

I am certain that people like WF, who lost friends during 9/11 will not forget the destruction of that day. Whether you agree or disagree with the policies that our government pursues, folks like those who hold the office of US Attorney in the Southern District of Florida are tasked with keeping us all safe. I want them to remember that day, and I want that memory to drive them to do the best job they can.

Whether ultra left or ultra right, we all hate terrorism and want our government to keep us safe. That is the point that Michael was really able to drive home - yes, we need to be kept safe, but at the same time, we need to protect our Constitutional liberties and hold true to the values that have made us this great Nation.

How far can law enforcement can go to protect us? God forbid something terrible happens again - law enforcement did not go far enough. In the name of terrorism prevention, continue prosecuting immigrants who try to sneak into America with the sole intention of working hard and earning a living - too far.

It is a very difficult question to address, and the reason that we should all encourage participation in more events like the Federalist Society panel discussion. That organization and its leadership deserve a lot of credit for gathering the panelists together to attempt to confront the issues.

The threat is real, it is deadly, and we do not want the people protecting us to forget it.

- Bette and Peter Cloud, the parents of terrorist attack victim Geoffrey Cloud of Sudbury, speak about their son to people gathered for a 9/11 remembrance at the September 11th Memorial Garden at Heritage Park in Sudbury Sunday.