Why doesn't the SDFLA have a drug court?

Seems like this District would benefit from such a program, which are up and running in numerous districts around the country. The front page of the NY Times profiles the new federal drug court and Judge Gleeson, who is yet again out in front of cutting edge criminal practice:

Federal judges around the country are teaming up with prosecutors to create special treatment programs for drug-addicted defendants who would otherwise face significant prison time, an effort intended to sidestep drug laws widely seen as inflexible and overly punitive. The Justice Department has tentatively embraced the new approach, allowing United States attorneys to reduce or even dismiss charges in some drug cases. The effort follows decades of success for “drug courts” at the state level, which legal experts have long cited as a less expensive and more effective alternative to prison for dealing with many low-level repeat offenders. But it is striking that the model is spreading at the federal level, where judges have increasingly pushed back against rules that restrict their ability to make their own determination of appropriate sentences. So far, federal judges have instituted programs in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. About 400 defendants have been involved nationwide. In Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Thursday, Judge John Gleeson issued an opinion praising the new approach as a way to address swelling prison costs and disproportionate sentences for drug trafficking. “Presentence programs like ours and those in other districts mean that a growing number of courts are no longer reflexively sentencing federal defendants who do not belong in prison to the costly prison terms recommended by the sentencing guidelines,” Judge Gleeson wrote. The opinion came a year after Judge Gleeson, with the federal agency known as Pretrial Services, started a program that made achieving sobriety an incentive for drug-addicted defendants to avoid prison. The program had its first graduate this year: Emily Leitch, a Brooklyn woman with a long history of substance abuse who was arrested entering the country at Kennedy International Airport with over 13 kilograms of cocaine, about 30 pounds, in her luggage. “I want to thank the federal government for giving me a chance,” Ms. Leitch said. “I always wanted to stand up as a sober person.”

Doug Berman has uploaded the Gleeson opinion here, and it's worth a read.

Claudio Osorio pleads guilty

But not before Judge Altonaga. He was scheduled to plead before her this week, but she recused. The case was reassigned to Judge Dimitrouleas and he took the plea today to two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). AUSA Lois Foster-Steers is prosecuting the case.

Verdict in Steiner case

The verdict is in for Steve Steiner and Henry Fecker. It was a 54 count indictment. Fecker was found not guilty of all counts and Steiner was found not guilty of about 75% of the counts. Trial was before Judge Kathy Williams.

Interesting Jury Question in Khan case (UPDATED)

Khan Jury Question 

And here's Judge Scola's response:

Court's Response 

Thanks very much to my tipster!

UPDATE -- here's the latest question.  Fascinating!

Another Kahn Question by

Verdict(s) today?

The juries are out in the Pakistani Taliban case and the Steve Steiner Mutual Benefits money laundering case.  If you hear anything, shoot me an email and I will post it.  Thanks!

Why won't the Supreme Court hear a prosecutorial misconduct case

There have been a bunch lately, but the Court keeps turning them away.  Justice Sotomayor issued a rare statement condemning the prosecutor (joined only by one other Justice), but why won't the Court take these cases? 

From her conclusion:

It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dig nity of our criminal justice

system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice. In discharging the duties of his office in this case, the Assis tant United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas missed the mark. 

 

Also troubling are the Government’s actions on appeal. Before the Fifth Circuit, the

Government failed to recognize the wrongfulness of the prosecutor’s question, instead

calling it only “impolitic” and arguing that “even assuming the question crossed the line,” it did not prejudice the outcome. Brief for United States in No. 11–50605, pp. 19-20. This prompted Judge Haynes to “clear up any confusion—the question crossed the line.” 478 Fed. Appx. 193, 196 (CA5 2012) (concurring opinion). In this Court, the Solicitor General has more appropriately conceded that the “prosecutor’s racial remark was unquestionably improper.” Brief in Opposition 7–8. Yet this belated acknowledgment came only after the Solicitor General waived the Government’s response

to the petition at first, leaving the Court to direct a response.

 

I hope never to see a case like this again.

"Attorney Maria Elena Perez blazes her own path in defense of former UM booster Nevin Shapiro"

That's one way to put it.  It's the headline for John Pacenti's in depth article about Maria Elena Perez, the lawyer representing the lowest of low snitches, Nevin Shapiro. 




Donna Shalala is outraged by it all: 

UM president Donna Shalala attacked the NCAA for its flawed investigation and maintains the university has been punished enough through two self-imposed postseason bans even though the NCAA gives the final word on punishment for violations.
Shalala is incredulous that the NCAA is taking the word of Perez's client, "who made a fortune by lying."

 Welcome to the federal criminal justice system.  This is the dirty little secret of federal criminal cases -- they are built on snitches like Shapiro every day of the week.  The criminal defense bar has gotten so used to it they it's become learned helplessness.  Maybe cases like this will push people to fight back instead of laying down while taking the shocks over and over again.  

Does DNA collection from arrestees violate the 4th Amendment?

That's the question before the High Court this morning.  Police, of course, say it's a vital tool:

The bolstered federal database has helped solve thousands of crimes by linking DNA evidence at old crime scenes to newly arrested people.
"Behind every number is a human story, a case in which a buccal swab sample collected from a felony arrestee played a crucial role in solving a violent crime," says a brief submitted by all 49 other states backing Maryland's law.
On the other side is Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested on assault charges in 2009. Police collected DNA from a simple cheek swab and matched it to a 2003 rape case, for which King then was convicted. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the cheek swab constituted a search without either a warrant or suspicion of another crime. Now the state, backed by the federal government, is challenging that ruling.

The NY Times, on the other hand, says no way:

The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless it was collected.

Maryland argues that collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so without legal justification.

Maryland also argues that the incursion on Mr. King’s privacy was minor compared with the major benefit in crime-solving. But the number of crimes solved with DNA from people arrested has been low. The substantial harm to innocent people that could result from the misuse of DNA greatly outweighs the benefits. And the safeguard against such harm is the Fourth Amendment, whose fundamental protections the Maryland court upheld. The Supreme Court should do likewise.

 

Will be interesting to see how this one comes out.  Predictions?