Telling a story

Roy Black has had quite a bit of great stuff on his blog recently about opening statements and telling a story. He explains why lawyers need to start strong and be dramatic. And of course, he is right on.

I was watching the Republican debate last night and it was evident why Herman Cain is gaining steam with his 999 plan -- it's dramatic, it's easy to understand and it resonates with people. Lawyers could learn a lot from watching Cain in these debates.

Check out this video (embedded below) from the debate at the 54 minute mark where Cain takes on Romney and Romney's 59 point plan (in 160 pages) while describing his own plan as simple and efficient. Romney has a good strong beginning with his answer, but you can see why Cain is doing well and is a good cross-examiner. At the end of Romney's answer, Cain says: So the answer to my question is no, it's not simple.

Bachman tries to go after Cain's plan by saying to flip 999 upside down (which makes it the number of the devil!) and Huntsman tries to say it's the price of pizza. Not so effective... Someone needs to come up with some easy to understand talking points about why 999 doesn't work. If not, Cain is going to keep gaining momentum -- not because the plan will necessarily work. But because he is telling a better story than the rest.

Columbus day reading

Here's some fun reading for those of you at work, like me:

1. The first of the Cuban 5 is out. Now what do we do with him? (Via Curt Anderson)

2. The Glass Ceiling doesn't apply to my law firm. (Via NY Times)

3. Judge Denny Chin talks about the difficult time he had sentencing defendants. (Via NY Times)

4. Justices Scalia and Breyer talk to Congress. (Via NPR) Here's an interesting exchange:

Scalia said he tries to figure out how the framers themselves understood the rights they outlined, and then carry those forward to today. Anything beyond that, he said, would be drafting new rights into the Constitution.

"I don't trust myself to be a good interpreter of what modern American values are. I have very little contact with the American people, I'm sorry to say. You do, and the members of the House probably even more," Scalia said. "So if you want to keep the Constitution up to date with current American values, you ought to decide what it means, and you can kiss us goodbye."

Then Breyer actually helped Scalia make an argument, explaining Scalia's worry that Breyer will end up substituting what he thinks is right for what the Constitution actually says.

"What I say is, yes, you are right about that — and all I can do is be on my guard, write my opinions, try to look to objective circumstances," Breyer said, "and I see the opposite danger — the opposite danger is called rigidity. The opposite danger is interpreting those words in a way that they will no longer work for a country of 308 million Americans who are living in the 21st century — work in the way those framers would have wanted them to work had they been able to understand our society."

Then, in a moment of remarkable collegiality, the liberal justice prompted Scalia to make an argument Breyer knew would trump what he had just said. He reminded Scalia about a familiar joke.

Two old friends are camping, Scalia said. When a great, big grizzly bear comes after them, the slower, pudgier friend says they will never outrun the bear. The friend running in front says, "I don't have to outrun that bear. I just have to outrun you."

"It's the same thing with originalism — I just have to show it's better than his [idea]," Scalia said.

It was clear the two justices had debated this hundreds of times. Wednesday's argument just happened to take place before a group of powerful senators. Because of that, the session became a kind of master class in the philosophy of law — and the art of "comity."

5. Scalia also says that the drug laws have hurt the judiciary (Via The Atlantic):

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia isn't a supporter of legalizing drugs. But he does believe that passing federal laws against them has done harm to the U.S. government. "It was a great mistake to put routine drug offenses into the federal courts," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. The Wall Street Journal went on to report Scalia's belief that the laws forced Congress to enlarge the federal court system, and diminished "the elite quality of the federal judiciary."

6. The Sun-Sentinel got the Mangione search warrants.

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.