Judge Scola rules that some of the Mickey Munday 404(b) material will come in (UPDATED — but prosecution not permitted to reference movie Cocaine Cowboys).

UPDATE — NBC6 also covers the ruling here:

A federal judge Friday gave prosecutors an opportunity to use some of a former cocaine smuggler’s words against him in a new mail fraud conspiracy case – but they must avoid using at least one phrase in front of the jury: cocaine cowboy.
In a series of pretrial rulings, US District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said the government could try to introduce some of the comments Michael “Mickey” Munday made after his 1999 release from prison about his long-ago days as a pilot and smuggler during South Florida’s cocaine cowboy era – but “without bringing out ‘cocaine cowboys.’”
***“The judge allowed, for example, a 28-second clip from Rakontur Films’2006 documentary “Cocaine Cowboys,” in which Munday talks about using tow trucks as a cover to avoid law enforcement – but, the judge added, the government “does not have to tell the jury this is from the movie ‘Cocaine Cowboys.’ …. We can sanitize out ‘Cocaine Cowboys.’””

Sorry Billy & Alfred.

Original post — Judge Scola has ruled that some of the Mickey Munday 404(b) material will come in (background here). From the Herald (which picked up the story after the blog broke it):

If they’re picked for the jury in a new federal case against Munday, they can see some of that in trial, too — but prosecutors won’t get to shine a spotlight on the Cocaine Cowboys documentary that turned the ex-pilot from Miami into a media celebrity.
That would be too prejudicial, U.S. Judge Robert Scola ruled on Friday, noting that Munday isn’t facing drug charges this time around. Prosecutors have charged him in connection with an insurance fraud ring involving stolen cars.
“I’m trying to minimize the term Cocaine Cowboy being used,” Scola said, acknowledging later: “He’s in a more unique situation than most defendants with a criminal past.”
But the judge did approve a request from prosecutors to show Munday’s Twitter page, in which he dubs himself the “original Cocaine Cowboy,” and one short clip from the film. The reason: the fraud ring’s leader will testify that he recruited Munday specifically because of his notoriety from the 2006 documentary.

The Herald explains the movie:

But the judge did approve a request from prosecutors to show Munday’s Twitter page, in which he dubs himself the “original Cocaine Cowboy,” and one short clip from the film. The reason: the fraud ring’s leader will testify that he recruited Munday specifically because of his notoriety from the 2006 documentary.

Not sure about the Spellman part... Here’s the Plantain:

The Plantain has confirmed that Disney's Animated Studio has purchased the rights to adapt the 2006 documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" into an animated television show. The show will reportedly be geared at 5-10 year old children and feature such educational lessons as how to convert units of measurements into the metric system and the importance of not being a fucking snitch.

Cocaine Cowboys tells the bloody backstory of Miami's 1980's cocaine trade. The seminal Miami movie was created by local filmmaker Billy Corben and his partner, a fictitious individual created for tax purposes supposedly named "Alfred Spellman."

Mickey Munday Motion

Self-proclaimed Cocaine Cowboy Mickey Munday is going to trial before Judge Scola in a fraud case involving car title.  The Government wants to use all of his old Cocaine Cowboy interviews, including from the Billy Corben/Alfred Spellman movie itself, because his cocaine exploits as well as the current case involve “transportation.”  The feds also want to use his Twitter feed, news interviews, and so on.  The whole motion is below, but here is an excerpt about Cocaine Cowboys:

 In 2006, the Defendant starred in the documentary film “Cocaine Cowboys.”  The documentary focuses on the importation and trade of drugs in Miami in the 1970s and 1980s.  The Defendant brags about his ability to smuggle drugs and his proficient evasion of law enforcement.  For instance, the Defendant discusses his use of code words, such as “coming in the front door” or “children in the water,” to evade law enforcement.  The Defendant also states that he would move contraband through the use of a tow truck, a trailer, and a work order.  Further, there is video of the Defendant loading a car onto a trailer.  At trial, the Government intends to offer the testimony of Messrs. Johnson and Carrington, who will discuss their use of code words with the Defendant as part of the conspiracy.  For instance, if a car were to come up as stolen, the Defendant and his coconspirators would refer to it as a possible “Signal Ten.”  Mr. Johnson will testify that the cars hidden at the Defendant’s house were referred to as “Orphans” and the Defendant’s house was referred to as the “Orphanage.”  Similarly, if a lienholder were attempting to locate a car, the Defendant and his conspirators would refer to the car as a “Problem Child.”   Here, just as in the video, the Defendant used a tow service company to serve as a cover for his illicit activity and allow him to transport contraband while maintaining, at least as to the Defendant, plausible deniability.  

Mickey Munday Motion by David Oscar Markus on Scribd

Mickey Munday Motion by David Oscar Markus on Scribd">

Chief Justice Roberts’ year end report

Happy new year SDFLA readers! 

Chief Justice Roberts issued this year-end report, discussing how the courts dealt with natural disasters and how they will deal with sexual harassment.  Here’s the intro:

In October 1780, while American patriots engaged the British in decisive battles for independence, a storm was brewing in the Caribbean.  The Great Hurricane of 1780—the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record— tracked a course from the Lesser Antilles to Bermuda, leaving a trail of destruction that touched both Florida and Puerto Rico.  Historians estimate that more than 20,000 people died.  The “Great Hurricane” was just one of several storms that ravaged the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico that fall.  In all, more than 28,000 perished.   Nearly two and a half centuries later, we remain vulnerable to natural catastrophes. Modern communication has enhanced our ability to learn of impending disasters, take precautions, and respond to those in need.  But today’s news cycle can also divert attention from the continuing consequences of calamities.  The torrent of information we now summon and dispense at the touch of a thumb can sweep past as quickly as the storm itself, causing us to forget the real life after-affects for those left in misfortune’s wake.

***
Court emergency preparedness is not headline news, even on a slow news day. But it is important to assure the public that the courts are doing their part to anticipate and prepare for emergency response to people in need.  

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE SDFLA!

Happy New Year!

While the rest of the country freezes, we are nice and cozy down here in the Southern District of Florida.  I hope everyone enjoys their family and friends during this short break.  All the best for 2018!

If you are looking for some light reading over the holiday, here's a fun article from law.com with laugh lines at the Supreme Court.  A few examples:

Noel Francisco’s wedding cake. (Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)
Justice Neil Gorsuch: “In fact, I have yet to have a wedding cake that I would say tastes great.”
Solicitor General Noel Francisco:  And, Your Honor, my wedding cake, the top of it is still sitting in our freezer, and I’m sure it no longer tastes great.”

An “obscure” question from Breyer. (Wilson v. Sellers)
Breyer: “Now, that’s extreme, but you see my point. Okay? What’s the answer to my point?”
Georgia Solicitor General Sarah Warren: “Justice Breyer, I’m not sure exactly what the, what the question was.”
Breyer: “Sorry. Well, from your pleasant expression, it sounded to me as if you were understanding my obscure question.”

Party like a justice. (District of Columbia v. Wesby)
Kagan: “And when looked at from the reasonable partygoer’s view, there are these parties that, once long ago, I used to be invited to, where you didn’t know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties? And, you know, so—and you know, it just is not obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say, ‘Got to get out of here.’”

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated."

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated." -- Anonymous appellate judge quoted in this BuzzFeed article from yesterday.

Of course there's no issue with staying on board until there's a President you agree with, but other than the occasional outlier, this criticism seems wrong to me.  Whether or not you agree with the politics of Trump's nominees so far, the majority of them seem qualified. Speaking of which, there are still 5 openings waiting to be filled in the Southern District of Florida.  Sources tell me that all 10 JNC finalists have been interviewed by the Senators and/or the White House.  Sources also tell me that the Senators won't be narrowing the list down to 5 recommendations for President Trump (as has been done with previous administrations).  Instead, all 10 nominees will be sent to the President's desk and he will pick 5 out of those... or 5 different selections... or a combination.  No one seems to know.

There's also this bubbling fight with the ABA over Trump's judicial picks.

Merry Christmas one day late in NY Fifa trial

Merry Christmas one day late in NY Fifa trial...

...Bruce Udolf showed the NY prosecutors how things are done from the 3-0-5 (Update—okay, okay... technically Udolf is from the 9-5-4). Not guilty for Manuel Burga, the former president of Peru's soccer federation, who has been in trial the last few months in the Eastern District of New York. The other two defendants were convicted.

Here's Burga leaving the courthouse with Udolf after the win.

Happy Festivus...

... for the rest of us.

Some airing of grievances:

1) Judges who don't vary down from the guidelines for first-time non-violent offenders.

2) Prosecutors who don't have open file discovery.

3) Defense lawyers who don't share what their cooperating clients are going to say.

4) The sentencing guidelines.

5) The few remaining judges who don't order early exhibit lists and pre-trial Jencks.

6) The good-faith exception to the 4th Amendment.

7) "Harmless error."

8) "PCA"

9) Arresting someone without giving them the opportunity to surrender.

10) Min-mans

CA11 holds that police can't tase someone for calling 911

CA11 holds that police can't tase someone (in this case a pregnant woman!) for calling 911. One wonders how this was even a question... but I digress:

Mrs. Brand then turned to Ms. Velazco and asked for a phone so she could call 911. Ms. Velazco handed Mrs. Brand the home phone. Deputy Pardinas ordered Mrs. Brand to “drop the phone,” but she did not. Instead she announced she was dialing 911. Mrs. Brand began dialing when suddenly and without warning, Deputy Pardinas tased her. The tase caused Mrs. Brand to fall to the floor in “[h]orrible, excruciating” pain.
Deputy Pardinas ordered Mrs. Brand to lie flat on her stomach. Deputy Pardinas began “punching [her] back,” striking Mrs. Brand about three times in an attempt to get her to lie on her stomach. Mrs. Brand said she couldn’t lie flat because she was pregnant. She kept one of her legs “elbowed out” to protect her stomach. Deputy Pardinas kicked Mrs. Brand’s leg several times to get her into a fully prone position.
***
As far as Deputy Pardinas knew, Mrs. Brand was not suspected of any crime when the deputy deployed her taser. Mrs. Brand was not the subject of the arrest warrant. And although Mrs. Brand was eventually arrested by Deputy Casal for obstruction and cruelty to children in the third degree, these alleged offenses were based on conduct that occurred before Deputy Pardinas joined Deputy Casal at the front of the house. Deputy Pardinas did not see, and did not know about, the altercation between Mrs. Brand and Deputy Casal that led to the charges against Mrs. Brand.
7 Those charges do not therefore support the reasonableness of Deputy Pardinas’s use of force. See Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 2002) (“We do not use hindsight to judge the acts of police officers; we look at what they knew . . . at the time of the act.”).
Second, Mrs. Brand did not pose any “immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others” when Deputy Pardinas tased her. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. It is true Mrs. Brand was “extremely upset [and] agitated” that the officers would not get out of her house. But, under the Brands’ version of events—which we accept at this stage—Mrs. Brand was never violent or aggressive toward the officers. For example, Ms. Velazco reports that Mrs. Brand never even yelled. Indeed, Ms. Velazco testified that “[t]he only aggressive acts came from the officers.” Mrs. Brand was simply standing in her foyer, asking the officers to leave, holding a phone, and attempting to dial 911. The defendants point to the fact that Mrs. Brand disobeyed Deputy Pardinas’s order to “drop the phone.” But there was nothing dangerous about Mrs. Brand holding a phone in the first place, especially where she made clear she was using it only to dial 911. Her refusal to comply with the order to drop the phone did not pose any threat to the safety of the officers, and certainly was not a threat that would necessitate the use of a taser with no warning to Mrs. Brand. Cf. Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1288 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[R]esisting arrest without force does not connote a level of dangerousness that would justify a greater use of force.”).
Third and finally, Mrs. Brand was neither actively resisting arrest nor attempting to escape when Deputy Pardinas tased her. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. By all accounts, she had not even been told she was under arrest at the time she was tased.
Based on the Brands’ account of the facts, we are persuaded that Deputy Pardinas “used force that was plainly excessive, wholly unnecessary, and, indeed, grossly disproportionate under Graham.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198. We therefore conclude that Deputy Pardinas’s tasing of Mrs. Brand constituted excessive force in violation of Mrs. Brand’s Fourth Amendment rights.