Judge Jordan’s nomination delayed and will join dozens awaiting Senate Floor votes

GUEST POST BY GLENN SUGAMELI

David Oscar Markus lives in a rational world. Thus, he reasonably believed that the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee would vote today on the nomination of S.D. Fla. District Judge Adalberto José Jordán to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit.

After all, Judge Jordan is strongly supported by his Florida home-state U.S. Senators, The Palm Beach Post Editorial Board urged a truce to avoid any delay of his confirmation, his hearing was uneventful, he was on today’s Committee’s agenda, and Chairman Pat Leahy’s statement explained that:

“Federal judicial vacancies across the country remain above 90. This is the longest extended period of high vacancies in the last 35 years. More than one of every 10 Federal judgeships remains vacant. Today the Committee has the opportunity to make progress and vote on 10 of President Obama's judicial nominees to fill vacancies in California, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, Washington, West Virginia and Utah, as well as on the 11th Circuit and the Federal Circuit.”

Judiciary Committee Republican senators, however, nearly always exercise their right to delay votes on every judicial nominee until the next week’s Executive Business Meeting the first time they are listed. Today, they delayed Judge Jordan and four others until Oct. 13.

Moe importantly, the fact that Judge Jordan is moving through Committee does NOT mean that he will get a Floor vote anytime soon. True, he has (bipartisan) home state senator support and should be approved without opposition in Committee. But that is also true of nearly all of the many other stalled nominees.

Anonymous and unexplained objections from GOP senators have created an unprecedented backlog of consensus judicial nominees who could and should be approved very quickly. As Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy explained in July, "we will still have 25 nominees sitting on the calendar who could be disposed of within an hour, yet they are blocked week after week after week.”

Even the most consensus district court nominees are only confirmed after inexcusable and unexplained delays. For example, the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s Oct. 5 Editorial described how

“Nannette Jolivette-Brown will be the first African-American woman to serve on the federal bench in Louisiana, following a unanimous vote by the U.S. Senate Monday confirming her nomination. . . . She had the backing of both Sen. [Mary] Landrieu and Sen. David Vitter, who was a law school classmate at Tulane University. Both urged the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to confirm her quickly at her confirmation hearing in May.”

There were 27 Committee approved judicial nominees awaiting Floor votes before the Senate belatedly confirmed Jolivette-Brown and five others unanimously. When the Committee approves Judge Jordan and the other delayed nominees next week, there will once again be 27 awaiting Floor votes.

A sweeping nonpartisan push to fill federal judgeships extends from Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, to the American Bar Association and Federal Bar Association, to countless editorials boards and commentators from across the nation.

Justice delayed is justice denied, as more than 200 million Americans live in areas where the U.S. Courts have declared vacant judgeships to be judicial emergencies.

-Glenn Sugameli, Staff Attorney, Judging the Environment, Defenders of Wildlife

Juror charged with soliciting bribe from defendant

This complaint is worth a read. From the government's press release:

According to the complaint filed in federal court today, Campagna was a sworn trial juror in the federal criminal case of United States v. Arturo Marrero, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 10-60244-CR-COOKE. Campagna allegedly approached the father of the defendant outside the U.S. Courthouse in Miami, Florida and stated that he had information about the case. Campagna gave the father a piece of paper with a telephone number on it, but did not identify himself by name or explain that he was a juror.

The complaint further alleges that later that afternoon, the defendant’s brother called Campagna and arranged to meet with him in Miami Beach to discuss the case. At that meeting, Campagna revealed to the brother that he was a juror in the case and that some of his fellow jurors were inclined to convict. Campagna offered to persuade other jurors to vote not guilty in exchange for a payment of between $50,000 and $100,000. The brother expressed skepticism at Campagna’s claims, and added that money was tight, that he would think about Campagna’s offer, and that he would get back to him the next day.

On October 5, 2011, the brother began to cooperate with the FBI and made a recorded telephone call to Campagna to follow up on his discussions of the day before. The brother asked whether Campagna was still willing to help influence the outcome of the case, and Campagna answered yes. The brother then proposed a meeting at the same time and place to discuss money and other details. Campagna agreed. The brother stated that he had been able to get some money together but wanted to negotiate a final price.

Later that day, the brother participated in a recorded meeting with Campagna near the same Miami Beach location. Campagna reiterated that he could influence the jury and prevent a guilty verdict. The brother and Campagna then began to negotiate over price, and eventually settled on $20,000, which is the amount the brother said that he had brought with him. Campagna followed the brother to his vehicle to obtain the cash payment. The brother then handed Campagna what appeared to be a bundle of cash in a brown paper bag. At that point, Campagna was arrested.

Marrero's lawyers are Dore Louis, Marcia Silvers, and Joe Rosenbaum. Does Marrero get reprosecuted after this or do the feds say thank you and move on?

RIP Steve Jobs

I remember my first computer -- an Apple IIe. I was the happiest kid in Kendall when we got it. There was no internet then, but I started a BBS called The Shire with a dial-up modem and two floppy disc drives. I'll never forget how cool I thought it was to be able to get baseball box scores from Compuserve right after the game ended. The lines would stream across the screen, one by one. I've never been able to throw that computer away. Much to my wife's chagrin, it still sits in our garage...

Here's Jobs' commencement speech from Stanford in 2005. It's worth watching for some inspiration:

Judge Jordan's nomination to be heard by Judiciary Committee on Thursday

Thankfully, his nomination is moving quickly. After the vote this Thursday, it will go to the full Senate.

En banc day

The 11th Circuit has decided to hear the Fair Sentencing Act cases (Rojas and Hudson) en banc. The Federal Public Defender's office represents both defendants. The two en banc orders are here and here.

Rojas was the case that was on the 11th Circuit webpage and then off and then on again. Should be interesting...

In other news:

-- Justice Stevens has a new book out, Five Chiefs, that looks really interesting.

-- Kenneth Starr says open up the Supreme Court to cameras. He's 100% right. Why not:

The benefits of increased access and transparency are many. Democracy’s first principles strongly support the people’s right to know how their government works. This would seem to be underscored by this court’s stubborn insistence on freedom of communication in a democratic society. Recall that earlier this year, the court held that the First Amendment protected the right of protesters to hector a military family during a funeral service for their son, who was killed in Iraq. And the court decided that the same societal interest in free speech outweighed California’s interest in protecting minors from extremely violent video games. These are but two of many examples in which the current court has made plain its view that, in extreme cases, the force of First Amendment rights shall outweigh all else.

Year after year, the court issues decisions that profoundly affect the nation. Think of civics classes. The retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is one of many who have lately lamented the apparent collapse of civic literacy in public schools. Think of older Americans affected by President Obama’s health care program. Think of women or other groups affected by important class-action cases, like the Wal-Mart discrimination case last term. These citizens should have a chance to hear what the justices think about important questions that touch their lives.

The issue of cameras in the courtroom is one of precious few on which conservative Republicans, like Senator John Cornyn of Texas, and liberal Democrats, like Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, agree.

First Monday in October

Law nerds like you and me love this day. And it looks to be a great Term. There are lots of stories covering this Term's cases, but I like Adam Liptak's article here. Seems like a bunch of interesting criminal law cases:

The court will decide whether the police need a warrant to use advanced technology to track suspects, whether jails may strip-search people arrested for even the most minor offenses, whether defendants have a right to competent lawyers to help them decide whether to plead guilty, when eyewitness evidence may be used at trial, and what should happen when prosecutors withhold evidence.

***

In United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259, the justices will consider whether the police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car and track its movements for weeks at a time. Some appeals court judges have said that such surveillance put them in mind of George Orwell’s novel “1984.” Prosecutors say that electronic enhancement of the ability of the police to stake out and track suspects raises no constitutional concerns.

A second Fourth Amendment case, Florence v. Board of Freeholders, No. 10-945, asks whether people arrested and held for minor offenses may be routinely strip-searched.

The court will also consider, in Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, whether a mix-up in the mailroom of a big New York law firm should mean that a death row inmate in Alabama must lose an opportunity to appeal a decision against him.

In a pair of cases to be argued on Oct. 31 — Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, and Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444 — the justices will consider whether defendants who were not told of favorable plea deals or were advised to reject them may pursue claims for ineffective assistance of counsel. A great majority of prosecutions are resolved with guilty pleas, and more vigorous judicial supervision of how the pleas are reached would have a broad practical impact.

The court will also consider the use of eyewitness evidence, in Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974. Such evidence, as the New Jersey Supreme Court found in a major decision in August, is often unreliable and has been the cause of many wrongful convictions. The justices will consider whether trial courts must be particularly wary of allowing such evidence to be presented when it has been tainted by suggestive circumstances not created by the authorities.

And the justices will return to a subject that sharply divided them in last term’s Connick v. Thompson case, which threw out a $14 million jury award to a former death row inmate who was cleared after prosecutorial withholding of evidence in New Orleans came to light. The new case, Smith v. Cain, No. 10-8145, also comes from New Orleans and concerns similar claims of prosecutorial misconduct.

And the First Amendment:

The court will continue its intense engagement with the First Amendment. But where earlier cases involved quirky issues like dog fights, funeral protests and the Seven Aphorisms of a fringe church called Summum, the marquee First Amendment cases this term involve issues of sweep and consequence.

In one, the court will rule on whether the government may ban swearing and nudity on broadcast television. In another, the justices will decide for the first time whether there is a “ministerial exception” to employment laws that allows religious institutions to discriminate in ways others employers cannot.

And that little health care case might come along too:

The health care case is not the only juggernaut looming on the horizon. In the next term or two, the court may well address same-sex marriage, affirmative action and illegal immigration. For now, the justices are focused on criminal cases, especially ones concerning the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a fair trial.

See you Monday

Here's what's up:

1. Did Bill Buckner appearing on Curb cause the Sox to lose?

2. I love when pro-se litigants win.

3. Fellow nerds unite!

4. Is this guy for real, arguing that mandatory guidelines are good? I would challenge him to a debate, but he'd never accept.

5. Roy Black examines the Conrad Murray openings.

Rosh Hashanah news and notes

1. Former ICE chief Anthony V. Mangione made his initial appearance today in federal court on this indictment (where he drew Judge Marra). His defense lawyer is David Howard. (The Herald has more here.)

2. Speaking of Judge Marra, he has ruled that the feds should have notified the victims (via PBP):

A federal judge has paved the way for victims to continue their fight to invalidate a secret deal, which saved billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein from facing serious federal charges and significant prison time.

Monday’s 14-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra rejects the U.S. Attorney’s Office argument that it was under no obligation to notify victims prior to striking a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein simply because there were no federal charges filed against him.

Marra ordered that discovery in the case proceed, which means that the victims — and the public — may get access to previously secret correspondence between Epstein’s attorneys and the government.

Attorneys Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards have been fighting on behalf of Jane Does No. 1 and No. 2 to have the federal non-prosecution agreement overturned, because, they say, it was done without notice or consent of the victims, which violates the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act.

In his ruling, Marra agrees that the language in the act provides for victims’ rights to include pre-charge proceedings.

“The government’s interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections,” Marra wrote in his ruling.

Marra also rejects the government’s argument that “pre-charge CRVA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making.”

Cassell, a former federal judge, called the ruling “a home run" for all victims.

3. Here's an interesting opinion on the plain view doctrine and screen savers, via Orin Kerr:

The legal question: When a computer is in screensaver mode, does a police officer’s touching a key or moving the mousepad in order to reveal the contents of the screen constitute a Fourth Amendment “search”?
***
The ruling: In United States v. Musgrove, 2011 WL 4356521 (E.D.Wis. 2011) (Joseph, M.J.):

Whether there is a search here is a close call because the officer did not actively open any files. A truly cursory inspection—one that involves merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it—is not a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 328 (1987). However, this is not such a case. By touching a key or moving the mouse, the officer put into view the Facebook wall, which was not previously in view. Though a close call, the Court concludes that this was a search, however minimal, which required further authority, a warrant or consent. The government submits that the officer’s manipulation of the computer was for the purpose of seizing the computer, not to conduct a preliminary search. However, intent is not generally relevant in assessing whether a search ensued. See, e.g., United States v. Mann, 592 F.3d 779, 784 (7th Cir.2010)(citing Platteville Area Apt. Ass’n v. City of Platteville, 179 F.3d 574, 580 (7th Cir.1999)). The Court therefore recommends that the defendant’s Facebook wall be suppressed.