Wednesday News & Notes

1.  The blog broke the news yesterday of the 4 nominees from the JNC for the federal bench.  Two of these nominees will be selected as our next federal judges:

Beth Bloom, Darrin Gayles, Peter Lopez, John Thornton

2.  Meantime, Judge Will Thomas' nomination is still being held up by Sen. Marco Rubio.  A rally on his behalf was held this morning at the federal courthouse.

3.  Claudio Osorio was sentenced to 12 1/2 years in prison.

4.   "Grotesque prosecutorial misconduct" leads to a new trial.  This time it's from New Orleans.  Via CNN:

Jury selection was minutes away for five ex-New Orleans police officers accused of shooting unarmed civilians after Hurricane Katrina when a commenter ripped into the defendants on a newspaper website.

"NONE of these guys should had have [sic] ever been given a badge," the commenter, identified only as "legacyusa," wrote. "We should research how they got on the police department, who trained them, who supervised them and why were they ever been promoted. You put crap in -- you get crap out!!!"

"Legacyusa" turned out to be one of the top federal prosecutors in New Orleans. His post was just one of many anonymous barbs that led a federal judge Tuesday to throw out the convictions of those ex-cops in the Danziger Bridge shootings, which left two people dead and four seriously wounded.

In a 129-page ruling, District Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt cited long list of "egregious and inflammatory" comments by at least three Justice Department officials using a variety of online identities. Those comments fueled a "21st century carnival atmosphere" that tainted the 2011 trial and will require a new one, Engelhardt wrote.

"This case started as one featuring allegations of brazen abuse of authority, violation of the law and corruption of the criminal justice system; unfortunately, though the focus has switched from the accused to the accusers, it has continued to be about those very issues," the order states. "After much reflection, the court cannot journey as far as it has in this case only to ironically accept grotesque prosecutorial misconduct in the end."

In a statement issued Tuesday afternoon, the Justice Department said, "We are disappointed with the court's ruling. We are reviewing the decision and considering our options."

  
 Seems like a strange reaction from DOJ.  Why do they defense misconduct?

5.   Locally, bond was denied this morning in a case involving Iran, uranium, African mines, and ICE.  From Curt Anderson:

A West African man was ordered jailed Thursday until trial on U.S. charges that he attempted to broker an illegal deal to ship tons of uranium ore from Sierra Leone to Iran, including a trip to the U.S. with uranium ore samples concealed in shoes inside his luggage.
Patrick Campbell, 33, faces a maximum of 20 years behind bars and up to $1 million in fines if convicted of attempting to violate the U.S. embargo against Iran. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement affidavit filed in federal court says Campbell claimed he could supply enough ore — commonly known as yellowcake — to yield 1,000 tons of purified uranium that could be used for nuclear fuel or weapons.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry Seltzer agreed with prosecutors at a hearing that Campbell should not be released on bail, although a trial date has not been set. Campbell is scheduled to enter a plea next week.

Breaking -- JNC cuts list to 4

Your next two federal district judges will be from this list:

Beth Bloom, Darrin Gayles, Peter Lopez, John Thornton

Congrats!!

Interesting to note that all four are sitting state judges in Circuit Court.

JNC interviews today

Good luck to all of the applicants.

After the interviews, the JNC will cut the list to four (for two open seats).  I will post those four names as soon as I have them.

Bonds strikes out

Barry Bonds' conviction was affirmed.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Barry Bonds obstructed justice before a federal grand jury when he tried to duck a question about steroid injections with an evasive and irrelevant answer, a federal appeals court ruled Friday in upholding the felony conviction of baseball's home run king.
A jury in San Francisco deadlocked in 2011 on three charges that Bonds committed perjury when he denied, in 2003 grand jury testimony, that he had ever knowingly used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs.
But jurors convicted him of obstructing the panel's investigation after a prosecutor asked him whether his personal trainer had ever given him injectable drugs. Instead of a yes-or-no answer, he launched into a discourse about his "celebrity" childhood, as the son of ex-ballplayer Bobby Bonds, and his friendship with the trainer, and added, "I just don't get into other people's business."
Bonds appealed his conviction, saying he had testified truthfully. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said factually accurate testimony can be obstructive if it is intended to throw an investigation off course.
"When factually true statements are misleading or evasive, they can prevent the grand jury from obtaining truthful and responsive answers," said Judge Mary Schroeder in the 3-0 ruling.
Bonds' lawyers were not immediately available for comment. They could ask the full appeals court for a rehearing. His sentence of 30 days of house arrest, 250 hours of community service and $4,100 in fines and court costs has been on hold during his appeal.
Bonds issued a statement on his website Friday that read, in part: "I have instructed my attorneys to ask the court and probation officials to permit me to begin serving my full sentence and probation immediately. Meanwhile, I also intend to seek further judicial review of the important legal issues presented by the appeal that was decided today."

Here's the intro to the opinion:

 Barry Bonds was a celebrity child who grew up in
baseball locker rooms as he watched his father Bobby Bonds
and his godfather, the legendary Willie Mays, compete in the
Major Leagues. Barry Bonds was a phenomenal baseball
player in his own right. Early in his career he won MVP
awards and played in multiple All-Star games. Toward the
end of his career, playing for the San Francisco Giants, his
appearance showed strong indications of the use of steroids,
some of which could have been administered by his trainer,
Greg Anderson. Bonds’s weight and hat size increased, along
with the batting power that transformed him into one of the
most feared hitters ever to play the game. From the late-
1990s through the early-2000s, steroid use in baseball fueled
an unprecedented explosion in offense, leading some
commentators to refer to the period as the “Steroid Era.”1 In
2002, the federal government, through the Criminal
Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service, began
investigating the distribution of steroids and other
performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”). The government’s
purported objective was to investigate whether the
distributors of PEDs laundered the proceeds gained by selling
those drugs.
The government’s investigation focused on the
distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory
Co-operative (“BALCO”), which was located in the San
Francisco Bay Area. The government raided BALCO and
obtained evidence suggesting that Anderson distributed
BALCO manufactured steroids to Bonds and other
professional athletes. The government convened a grand jury
in the fall of 2003 to further investigate the sale of these
drugs in order to determine whether the proceeds of the sales
were being laundered. Bonds and other professional athletes
were called to testify. Bonds testified under a grant of
immunity and denied knowingly using steroids or any other
PEDs provided by BALCO or Anderson. The government
later charged Bonds with obstructing the grand jury’s
investigation. After a jury trial, Bonds was convicted of one
count of obstruction of justice in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1503. He now appeals. We affirm the conviction.

In other news, the U.S. Attorney's office in the Eastern District of North Carolina is not going to put up with prosecutorial misconduct. The whole article is worth a read, but here's the intro from the Charlotte Observer:

In May, U.S. Court of Appeals judges were so upset with federal prosecutors from North Carolina’s Eastern District for persistently hiding or mishandling criminal case evidence that a tongue-lashing, perhaps never heard before in the stately wood-paneled U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals courtroom in Richmond, Va., was delivered from the bench.
“I’ve been an appellate judge for 28 years, and I have never made these kinds of comments to a prosecutor, never,” Appeals Court Judge Barbara Keenan told the prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in North Carolina’s 44-county region that stretches from Raleigh to the coast. “But the increasing frequency from your office of this kind of conduct is really troubling, really troubling.”
The circuit judges followed with a ruling two weeks ago in the securities fraud case of United States v. Gregory Bartko, suggesting that a prosecutor had ignored false testimony instead of correcting it during trial, among other concerns. The judges said the case further highlighted a troubling pattern of Eastern District prosecutors withholding evidence from defendants. They asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to review the behavior.
That has led to a shakeup at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the North Carolina Eastern District. Thomas Walker, the appointed U.S. Attorney since 2011, confirmed changes to the top ranks of his staff and said in an interview that he has adopted new rules for handling evidence in criminal cases.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/09/09/4294706/top-federal-prosecutor-in-nc-eastern.html?goback=.gde_1525477_member_273178346#.UjcNJj_ZV8F#storylink=cpy

Do Bloggers irritate judges?

Senior U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf has this post today on that exact subject (re Howard Bashman at How Appealing) at his blog, "Hercules and the Umpire."

Meantime, it appears that Judge Kopf has irritated an appellate judge with his use of language on his blog: 

While he thought the story was inspiring, a distinguished federal appellate judge from another Circuit thought my use of a vulgarity (“suck”) in the post about Shon Hopwood offended good taste.  I am glad the judge cared enough to write, and I sincerely thank him. Although I am not keen on receiving lectures on taste and decorum, the judge’s candid criticism about my use of rough, profane or vulgar language caused me to reflect seriously on his point.
I am of two minds. On the one hand, I understand the great strength of the judge’s point. Among other consequences, jarring language such as the word the judge complained about may unnecessarily diminish respect for other judges. Moreover, judges should model civilized writing if for no other reason than they expect civilized discourse from others. Still further, bad words are simply losing their utility in our coarsening society. On the other hand, I want to demystify the work of federal trial judges. Sometimes, rough language expresses my thoughts in a way that more refined language would mask. Indeed, from where I sit, much of what I see and hear is actually profane and vulgar no matter how I might wish to sanitize it.

I really enjoy reading Kopf's blog as it is a pretty open dialogue from a sitting district judge. He also engages his readers in the comment section. If you haven't already, you should check it out.

If you are interested in Supreme Court "beauty contests," there are two good articles to read:

The first is on Above the Law about how the law firms were selected in the Obamacare cases, and the second is from the Daily Report about a case headed to the Supreme Court between Georgia and Florida where Georgia took bids for the case:

Lawyers who want to defend Georgia from Florida's impending lawsuit over water rights range from a former U.S. solicitor general who regularly charges more than $1,100 per hour to a recent law school graduate who offered to work for free. Those were two of the 29 applications the Georgia Law Department received by Tuesday's deadline. Two other applications were submitted after the deadline, and the department has not yet determined whether they will be considered. This is the first time under Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens that the Law Department has sought bids for potential special assistant attorneys general.

Finally, the 11th Circuit decided that ghostwriting for a pro se litigant isn't so bad.  I wonder which law clerk wrote that opinion.

Judge happenings

Interesting news out of Atlanta regarding negotiations over judgeships for the 11th Circuit and the district seat.  From Robin McDonald's article:

Georgia's Republican U.S. senators have cut a deal with state Democrats that, if approved by the White House, would fill six judgeships on Atlanta's federal appeals and district court benches, Georgia lawyers familiar with the nomination process have told the Daily Report.
The package deal would remove roadblocks thrown up by Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson that have held up the confirmation of Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor, a partner at Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, for the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Pryor was nominated in February 2012.
The deal also recommends the elevation to the Eleventh Circuit of U.S. District Court Chief Judge Julie Carnes of the Northern District of Georgia. Carnes was appointed to her current post by President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Carnes' move would create a fourth vacancy on the district court in Atlanta, where judges who left in 2009, 2010 and this year have yet to be replaced.
The new bargain includes the nomination of Leigh Martin May, a personal injury and product liability attorney at Butler Wooten & Fryhofer, for the Northern District bench. May was on a 2009 list of potential nominees that was sent to the White House by a committee appointed by members of Georgia's Democratic congressional delegation; May's law partner, James Butler, was a member of that committee. Chambliss and Isakson initially rejected May and others as nominees.
In return for their agreement not to block the nominations of Pryor and May, Chambliss and Isakson would name candidates to the other three district court vacancies. They include Troutman Sanders partner Mark Cohen, whose name the senators put forth first in 2010 for the Northern District bench and in 2011 for the Eleventh Circuit. Their remaining two picks are two state court judges appointed by Republican Governor Nathan Deal—DeKalb County State Court Judge Eleanor Ross and Judge Michael Boggs of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

Meantime, the JNC has cut the list for district judge in the Middle District.  Now it's up to the Senators to pick from these four:  

Paul Byron, Bill Jung, Carlos Mendoza, Waddell Wallace

Trial for Joel Steinger continued

Who can blame Judge Scola... the dude was in a hospital gown.  From Curt Anderson:

 On the eve of jury selection, a federal judge agreed Monday to delay the trial of the alleged mastermind of an $800 million insurance investment fraud scheme because the man suffers from severe pain and health problems caused by a chronic back ailment.

U.S. District Judge Robert Scola granted the postponement after former Mutual Benefits Corp. chief Joel Steinger, 63, tearfully requested time for spinal surgery. Steinger, who uses a wheelchair and is on strong pain medications, appeared in court in a hospital gown. He frequently wrapped a blanket around his chest.

"You can't do this like this. I don't have the strength to go on. I can't take the pain anymore," Steinger said in a voice breaking with emotion. "You know what I'm thinking about now? Getting back to the hospital so I can get more dope."...

Steinger would have needed frequent breaks if trial had gone forward in his current condition, along with a special chair, oxygen bottle and a nurse standing by to handle his needs - all at taxpayer expense. These conditions, Scola wrote, "make his presence throughout the trial a logistical and hygienic nightmare" that surgery may avoid.

Justices out talking

 Justice Scalia spoke in Texas:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia visited Houston on Friday and offered his thoughts about Christian morality and economic systems.
The 30-minute lecture explored the question: Is capitalism or socialism more conducive to Christian virtue?

...

"The cardinal sin of capitalism is greed, but the cardinal sin of socialism is power. I'm not sure there's a clear choice between those evils," Scalia said. "While I would not argue that capitalism as an economic system is inherently more Christian than socialism … it does seem to me that capitalism is more dependent on Christianity than socialism is. For in order for capitalism to work - in order for it to produce a good and a stable society - the traditional Christian virtues are essential."
Scalia, who is Catholic, discussed how religious orders once took care of orphans and the elderly, which is now done in large part by "salaried social workers" and financed by tax dollars.
"The governmentalization of charity affects not just the donor but also the recipient. What was once asked as a favor is now demanded as an entitlement," he said. "The transformation of charity into legal entitlement has produced donors without love and recipients without gratitude. ... It's not my place or my purpose to criticize these developments, only to observe that they do not suggest the expanding role of government is good for Christianity."

Some of the Q and A:

Q: Have you ever noticed that positions of justices on a particular subject changes or becomes more liberal the longer they stay on the bench?

A: "It's demonstrably false. I've been there longer than anybody and I think I'm further from left than I was. … It is a common phenomenon."
Q: You are so persuasive and logical - why arent' you able to persuade your liberal colleagues?
A: "Most of these issues on which we disagree, it's fundamental stuff. … [People] think most of the time, we are contemplating our navels: 'should there be a right to die,' 'should there be legal abortion' - something that Joe Six-Pack knows the answer to as well as I do. … Most of the time we are doing real law: We're figuring out the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, the Internal Revenue code. That is hard and really dull stuff."
Q: Evaluate the condition of the Catholic Church in the United States.
A: "I think it's doing OK. It's been around a long time, you know."
Q: Are you a Redskins fan?
A: "I'm not really much of a football fan. To the extent I am, I hate the Redskins. In fact, I always root for Dallas."
Q: How would you handle Syria?
A: "Naw. I shouldn't talk about that. I have strong views on it, though."
Q: What is the constitutional basis for the principal of 'stare decisis' (legal principal of judges respecting the precedent established by prior decisions) and does it play inherently to the socialist?
A: "It is impossible to run a judicial system without it. You can't reinvent the wheel with every case. … The constitution implicitly expects the courts to function in a manner that is not nuts."
Q: What is the greatest miscarriage of constitutional justice during your tenure?
A: "Oh, there are many candidates. … The most disreputable area of our law is the establishment clause. (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.) … A violation of the establishment clause that does not affect someone's free exercise - there is no reason why you should have standing.

Meantime, Justice Ginsburg was speaking too:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who recently officiated at a friend's same-sex wedding, told a Philadelphia audience Friday that growing acceptance of gay marriage reflects the "genius" of the U.S. Constitution.

Ginsburg said equality has always been central to the Constitution, even if society has only applied it to minorities - be they women, blacks or gays - over time.

"So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning," Ginsburg said in a far-ranging discussion of her work at the National Constitution Center, steps from the nation's founding at Independence Hall.

... Ginsburg has often been on the losing side of the epic battles, but said some would have turned out differently had the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, not retired in 2006.

"The year she left us, in every case where I was among the four, if she had remained, I would have been among the five. So her leaving the court made an enormous difference," Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg criticized her majority colleagues for what she called "activist" decisions that overturned laws better understood by Congress, such as the Voting Rights Act, which had been extended by a series of bipartisan presidents, most recently George W. Bush.

"That's an example of striking down legislation on a subject that the people in the political arena are better informed about than the court is," she said.

Ginsburg, 80, gave no hint she would wind down her judicial career anytime soon, noting that the fall docket includes such important issues as campaign finance limits and affirmative action. And, despite her sharp ideological differences with some colleagues, including close friend Antonin Scalia, she said their work environment remains cordial.

"One of the hallmarks of the court is collegiality," Ginsburg said. "You could not do the job that the Constitution gives to us if you didn't, to use one of Justice Scalia's favorite expressions, `Get over it.'"

Closer to home, the psychic trial is still going.  Paula McMahon is covering it with her last two articles here and here.   You can't beat the headlines:

"Psychic dictated messages from Brad Pitt and Colin Powell, witness testifies"
and
"Dead husband's frozen sperm did not sire a child, psychic's client says she was told"

The articles are fun reads.