“This is really a story about redemption.”

A great quote on Rosh Hashanah from Bill Barzee about his client, lobbyist Richard Canadia.  Judge Cooke sentenced him to probation and four months of home confinement. From the (newly designed) Herald:

Cooke said she recognized his remorse and the significance of his help. She also recognized he was a vulnerable man who had gone through financial difficulty, a divorce and the death of his parents when he decided to participate in an FBI-orchestrated grant scheme to rip off the federal government.
Cooke, known for her folksy expressions, said the “wheels fell off the bus” in describing Candia’s dire situation. Before that, “I don’t think this was anything you were capable of or thought you would do,” the judge told him.

Pizzi surely hasn't kept his head down since his acquittal.  Here are his comments after the sentencing:

After Thursday’s sentencing, Pizzi called Candia’s deal an “outrage.”

“After three years and millions of tax dollars spent, lying lobbyist Michael Kesti is doing talk shows and lying lobbyist Richard Candia is home watching footballs games,” Pizzi said. “These are two lobbyists who lied to and wanted to corrupt every city in the state in order to make money. One got a big paycheck by conning the government and the other, Candia, a free pass. This is how this operation ended.”

"Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can."

That's Notorious RGB, otherwise known as Justice Ginsburg, in this Elle article. It's an awesome article and worth the read.  Here's one exchange:

It’s part of Washington lore that you and Justice Scalia are good friends and opera buddies. I have to ask, when he says that the Constitution doesn’t necessarily prohibit discrimination against women, isn’t it hard not to take it personally?

Justice Scalia and I served together on the DC Circuit. So his votes are not surprising to me. What I like about him is that he’s very funny and very smart.

[She points to a photograph.] That one shows the two of us in 1994 when we were on a delegation to India. So there we are on a very elegant elephant. My feminist friends say, “Why are you riding on the back of the elephant?” and I said, “Because of the distribution of weight, we needed to have Scalia in the front.”

Does it make a difference having three women justices?

Yes, an enormous difference….When Sandra left, I was all alone…. Now Kagan is on my left, and Sotomayor is on my right. So we look like we’re really part of the court and we’re here to stay. Also, both of them are very active in oral arguments. They’re not shrinking violets. It’s very good for the schoolchildren who parade in and out of the court to see.

In other news, a Miami state judge supposedly told a store clerk "to go and f--- yourself."

Michael Boggs' nomination to district bench in Georgia appears dead

The AP has the story here:

President Barack Obama's controversial selection of Michael Boggs to become a federal judge in Georgia lacks enough votes to survive and the nomination should be withdrawn, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said Monday in what amounts to a rare rebuff of the president from his own party.

The fate of Boggs's nomination has been in doubt for months, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Democrats expressed opposition to him because of positions he has taken on abortion, same-sex marriage and the Confederate flag.

Monday's remarks by the Judiciary chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., signaled what could become an embarrassment for Obama. It is unusual for a president's nominees to be rejected by members of his own party.

Several hours earlier, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama did not want Boggs to withdraw his nomination. Earnest gave a modest endorsement of Boggs, saying Obama believes that "Judge Boggs has the necessary qualifications to serve in this role."

After Leahy's statement, White House spokesman Eric Schultz stood by Earnest's remarks.

Leahy's comments came six weeks before congressional elections in which strong support from women and black voters would enhance Democrats' chances of retaining Senate control and limiting expected losses in the House.

Obama last year nominated Boggs, a state appeals court judge, to become a federal district judge in Georgia. Boggs was recommended by that state's two Republican senators as part of a deal to fill seven judicial vacancies there.

***

Boggs served as a Georgia state legislator a decade ago. During that time, he backed measures to post information online about doctors who perform abortions - which opponents said could jeopardize those physicians - and to keep the Confederate battle emblem on the Georgia flag. He also supported a proposed amendment to the state constitution barring same-sex marriages.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in May, Boggs told the senators that he now believes his vote on abortion doctors was wrong and he's glad the Confederate emblem was later removed from the state flag. He said his views on same-sex marriage "may or may not have changed."

Nonetheless, he was criticized by several Democrats, with some expressing skepticism that he could make impartial decisions.

Abortion-rights groups hailed word that Boggs' nomination was in trouble.

"Everybody wishes this guy would do the right thing and withdraw," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "He's got no pathway forward, and he's taking up time and energy that everybody wishes could be spent on other things."

60 minutes visits the SDFLA and interviews Wifredo Ferrer

You can watch the clip here:

Barry Bonds' conviction in trouble?

That's what all of the court observers are saying after yesterday's en banc argument (watch here*).  Here's one example, by Pamela MacLean:

The government may have struck out with the majority of an 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in former Giants slugger Barry Bonds’ challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction in an investigation of steroids use.
“I find your reading of the statute absolutely alarming,” Judge William Fletcher to the government’s lawyer Mary Jean Chan.  And it got worse from there.
A three judge panel of the appeals court upheld Bonds conviction for obstruction of justice in September 2013 for his evasive testimony to a grand jury investigating illegal distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO.)
The three-judge appeals panel held that his answers were “evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury to minimize” the role of Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, suspected of distributing performance enhancing drugs.
Bonds’ attorney Dennis Riordan opened by saying any decision will garner public attention because of Bonds’ celebrity and controversial status.  But that’s not what’s important, what is important, he said, “This is the first time the government has asked to convict  a defendant for comments to a grand jury that were non-responsive, to convict for obstruction of justice because he wandered off topic.”
While Riordan faced tough questioning, most of the fire was reserved for the government.
Fletcher asked what happens in civil litigation if lawyers respond to interrogatories and they give truthful but evasive answers.  “Are they guilty of a crime?” he asked.
“Yes,” responded Chan.
“Well that is a common practice in civil litigation and you may have criminalized half the bar.  “Half the bar may be in serious trouble,” he said.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski accused the government of engaging in some evasive conduct in the superseding indictment by not making clear the Bonds statements that were allegedly evasive.
Bonds’ rambling answers to the grand jury  about being a “celebrity child” in response to a question whether he received any steroids from  Anderson could be the basis of a conviction, the panel held.  The panel found that even truthful answers could be the basis of conviction if they were so evasive.
Bonds was sentenced in 2011 to spend 30 days in his Beverly Hills mansion and perform 250 hours of community service for his conviction to use of dodgy answers to federal questions.  Jurors could not agree on a perjury charge against Bonds.
Judge Susan Graber said, “Speaking for myself, I don’t see how there is sufficient evidence [of obstruction] when the question was asked and answered repeatedly.”
Kozinski asked, “Can you cure a misleading answer?”
“Not if the intent was to mislead at the time,” Chan said.
“But wasn’t it cured in this case?” asked JudgeJacqueline Nguyen?

*How cool (and informative) is it that you can watch the argument right after it happens.  When will the 11th do this?


Meantime, last night the Broward Federal Bar Association had its big gala.  Lots of federal judges turned out, including federal judge hopefuls. 

Should Judge Fuller resign?

In addition to Judge Kopf's posts on the subject, there is growing noise that Fuller needs to step down -- this time from members of the Congress.  From the Montgomery Advertiser:

Alabama's two U.S. senators on Wednesday called for U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller to step down from the bench, joining a growing chorus of federal lawmakers seeking the judge's resignation after his arrest on domestic violence charges last month.
Fuller, 55, was arrested early on the morning of Aug. 10 and charged with misdemeanor battery. According to a police report, Fuller's wife, who had lacerations to her mouth and forehead, said the judge threw her to the ground, pulled her hair and kicked her after she confronted him over alleged affair with a law clerk.
The judge, who was appointed to the U.S. Middle District for Alabama in 2002, agreed to enter a pre-trial diversion program earlier this month. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has reassigned his caseload and has launched an investigation of Fuller's actions.
"The American people's trust in our judicial system depends on the character and integrity of those who have the distinction and honor of sitting on the bench and I believe Judge Mark Fuller has lost the confidence of his colleagues and the people of the state of Alabama and I urge him to resign immediately," Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican, said in a phone interview.
U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Birmingham, called for Fuller's resignation last week, saying he had "violated the public trust." Earlier on Wednesday, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said on her Twitter account that Fuller should resign. U.S. Rep. Martha Roby, R-Montgomery, issued a statement Tuesday saying that "domestic abuse cannot be tolerated, explained away or swept under the rug," and raised the possibility of Fuller's impeachment.
Shelby said he called Fuller to alert him that he was going to publicly call for his resignation. A message left with Barry Ragsdale, an attorney for Fuller, was not immediately returned Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Rosenbaum's first published opinion in the 11th Circuit starts this way

Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge: 
It was a scene right out of a Hollywood movie.  On August 21, 2010, after more than a month of planning, teams from the Orange County Sheriff’s Office descended on multiple target locations.  They blocked the entrances and exits to the parking lots so no one could leave and no one could enter.  With some team members dressed in ballistic vests and masks, and with guns drawn, the deputies rushed into their target destinations, handcuffed the stunned occupants—and demanded to see their barbers’ licenses.  The Orange County Sheriff’s Office was providing muscle for the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s administrative inspection of barbershops to discover licensing violations.   We first held nineteen years ago that conducting a run-of-the-mill administrative inspection as though it is a criminal raid, when no indication exists that safety will be threatened by the inspection, violates clearly established Fourth Amendment rights.  See Swint v. City of Wadley, 51 F.3d 988 (11th Cir. 1995). We reaffirmed that principle in 2007 when we held that other deputies of the very same Orange County Sheriff’s Office who participated in a similar warrantless criminal raid under the guise of executing an administrative inspection were not entitled to qualified immunity.  See Bruce v. Beary, 498 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2007).  Today, we repeat that same message once again.  We hope that the third time will be the charm. 

STRONG!  Click here for the whole opinion.

Judge William Pryor (note that the court is now distinguishing the two Pryors) concurred and dissented from the opinion, with this intro:

I agree with the majority opinion that the search of the barbershop exceeded the scope of a reasonable administrative inspection and that the barbers presented evidence that Corporal Keith Vidler, as the supervisor, violated their clearly established constitutional rights. I also agree that Brian Berry presented evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie, who handcuffed Berry and patted him down, violated his clearly established constitutional rights. But Edwyn Durant, Reginald Trammon, and Jermario Anderson presented no evidence that Deputy Travis Leslie violated their constitutional rights. Even though the inspection of the barbershop appeared to be “a scene right out of a Hollywood movie” (Majority Op. at 1), we cannot bend the law to resolve this appeal with a feel-good ending from a boxoffice hit. The law entitles Leslie to qualified immunity against any barber who failed to present evidence that Leslie personally deprived him of a clearly established constitutional right. Durant, Trammon, and Anderson failed to prove an affirmative causal connection between their specific injuries and Leslie’s conduct. For that reason, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.  

HT How Appealing.

Have the appellate courts really changed?

The NY Times had this front page story yesterday about President Obama's appointments and how he is "reshaping" the appellate courts.  From the intro:

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.

For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

What do the readers think -- will the "change" in the 11th Circuit make a difference?  The 11th Circuit has been known to be one of the most, if not the most, conservative appellate courts in the country for the past decade or two.  It's too early to tell just yet, but I wonder whether we are going to see huge changes in the 11th Circuit, especially on criminal justice issues.  Let's see what happens with these recent en banc cases that the court agreed to hear.

In other news, there is an interesting fugitive case, in which the last time he was seen was in Florida (from the AP):

One of the last times anyone ever saw Tommy Thompson, he was walking on the pool deck of a Florida mansion wearing nothing but eye glasses, leather shoes, socks and underwear, his brown hair growing wild.*
It was a far cry from the conquering hero who, almost two decades before, docked a ship in Norfolk, Virginia, loaded with what's been described as the greatest lost treasure in American history - thousands of pounds of gold that sat in the ocean for 131 years after the ship carrying it sank during a hurricane.
On that day in 1989, Thompson couldn't contain a grin as hundreds cheered his achievement. But his victory was short-lived.
For the past two years, the U.S. Marshals Service has hunted Thompson as a fugitive - wanted for skipping a court date to explain to investors what happened to the riches. The rise and fall of the intrepid explorer is the stuff of storybooks, a tale receiving renewed attention amid a new expedition begun this year to the sunken ship.
"I think he had calculated it, whatever you want to call it, an escape plan," Marshals agent Brad Fleming said. "I think he's had that for a long time."

*That;s how I looked yesterday when I lost to Rumpole in our fantasy football match-up.