Happy Festivus for the rest of us.

It’s going to be a quiet two weeks in the District.  But the powers that be have made the deadline for applying to the Florida Supreme Court on December 24.  Fun times.  Here’s an article about the applicants for the two open seats (Lagoa/Luck) so far:

As of Friday evening, 12 applicants had already handed in their paperwork in a process that stems from President Donald Trump naming former Florida Supreme Court justices Robert Luck and Barbara Lagoa to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Atlanta-based court handles cases from Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

The openings offer Gov. Ron DeSantis an opportunity to appoint two more justices to a Supreme Court he’s already reshaped.

Shortly after taking office in January, DeSantis named three conservative jurists --- Luck, Lagoa and Carlos Muñiz --- to replace three liberal-leaning justices who were forced to step down after reaching a mandatory retirement age.

The applicants as of Friday evening included lawyer Belinda Noah, along with five Florida appellate judges and six circuit judges from across the state.

Judges Ed Scales and Norma Lindsey of the 3rd District Court of Appeal, Judge Samuel Salario of the 2nd District Court of Appeal and Judge Thomas “Bo” Winokur of the 1st District Court of Appeal had applied. They were all appointed to their current jobs by former Gov. Rick Scott.

Also in the running were circuit judges Cymonie Rowe, of the 15th Judicial Circuit in Palm Beach County; Daryl Trawick, of the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County; Howard McGillin, of the 7th Judicial Circuit, which is made up of Flagler, Putnam, St. Johns and Volusia counties; Elijah Smiley, of the 14th Judicial Circuit, which is made up of Bay, Calhoun, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson and Washington counties; Tatiana Salvador, of the 4th Judicial Circuit, which is made up of Duval, Clay and Nassau counties; and Hunter Carroll, of the 12th Judicial Circuit, which is made up of Sarasota, Manatee and DeSoto counties.

Raag Singhal confirmed!

The vote was 76-17.  Congratulations to our newest federal judge!  Woohoo!

Raag Singhal to be confirmed today (UPDATED)

Most of the country will be focused on the impeachment vote today. But the Trump judge machine is still operating and another slate of district judges will be confirmed today, including our own Raag Singhal this afternoon. Judge Singhal is great, so say what you will about Trump, but we are getting a good one!

UPDATE -- looks like it will actually be tomorrow (Thursday).

Breaking: Gov. DeSantis Appoints SDFL AFPD and AUSA to State Court Bench, Elevates Former AUSA

Assistant Federal Public Defender Ayana Harris and AUSA Miesha Darrough are joining the state court bench, two of four new County Court judges named today by Gov. Ron DeSantis. Former AUSA and current County Court Judge Robert Watson is being elevated to the Circuit Court, along with two other County Court judges. The Governor just made the announcement at a press conference at the University of Miami, where he presented his latest seven judicial appointees.

Harris is a Howard Law grad and has been a member of the Florida Bar since 2002. She first served as a state public defender and since 2008 has been an Assistant Federal Public Defender.

Darrough is also a graduate of Howard University Law School and has been a member of the Florida Bar since 2005. She served as an Assistant State Attorney from 2005 to 2014, including as a felonies Division Chief. Darrough then joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where she is currently Special Counsel to U.S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan.

Watson is a Stanford Law grad and has been a Florida lawyer since 2003. He practiced at Steel Hector & Davis and Holland & Knight before serving as an AUSA from 2011 to 2016. After two years at Kobre & Kim, he was appointed to the County Court by then-Gov. Rick Scott in January 2019.

Congratulations to all of the appointees!

In defense of former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin

So the outgoing Kentucky Governor did the right thing and issued a bunch of pardons as some of  his last acts in office, and the local prosecutors are not happy about it.  From the Washington Post:

Former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin (R) on Friday night defended his controversial pardons as reflections of America’s foundational “support for redemption,” a statement that followed a Republican state leader’s call for a federal investigation into Bevin’s actions.
The former governor, who lost his bid for reelection in November, made national headlines this week after he pardoned hundreds of people during his final days in office, including a man convicted of reckless homicide, a child rapist and a woman who threw her newborn in the trash. In one case, Bevin pardoned a man convicted of homicide who was the brother of one of the former governor’s campaign donors.
The pardons outraged local attorneys and prosecutors, who said they were not consulted during the process. As the backlash continued to build Friday, Republicans in the Kentucky state Senate issued a statement blasting Bevin.

He responded:

On Friday, Bevin responded to his critics in a series of 20 tweets. He said he spent “hundreds of hours” reviewing pardon applications and made each decision based on the “set of facts, evidence, lack of evidence, supporting documents, reasons and unique details.”
Bevin added it was “highly offensive and entirely false” for anyone to suggest “political or financial considerations” played a role in his decisions.
“The criminal justice system is intended to find the proper balance between justice for the victims and rehabilitation for the offenders. When it is not possible to guarantee more of either being accomplished by further incarceration, it is reasonable for a person to be considered for either a commutation or a pardon,” Bevin wrote. “This is never an exact science. … The entire criminal justice system hinges upon the judgment of third parties.
Bevin, a devout Christian, also strongly defended himself from charges he endangered public safety.
“Not one person receiving a pardon would I not welcome as a co-worker, neighbor, or to sit beside me or any member of my family in a church pew or at a public event,” he wrote. “No community is either more or less safe now, than it was before the pardons and commutations given over the past four years.”

Good for Bevin and shame on the critics. We put way too many people in jail for way too long. The fact that the Governor used his pardon power as it was intended should be applauded. If we are serious about criminal justice reform, we should be encouraging this sort of behavior.

A new hope

There's been a lot of talk about how the new judges (both district and circuit) will be on criminal justice issues.  One of those judges, Roy Altman, is already distinguishing himself as independent, smart, and not just another government rubber-stamp.  Here's his latest order (which demonstrates those qualities), dismissing a hung count after trial. 

Federal courts are now used to prosecute cheating in class

We all know of the high profile, and controversial, prosecutions of Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin.  But now, the "Varsity Blues" prosecutors have expanded their case to go after parents who have engaged in simple cheating.  The latest case (and plea deal!) involves a charge of wire fraud for a parent who paid $9,000 for another person to take an online class for her son.  Immoral, yes.  Federal criminal wire fraud... come on!  From USA Today:

In a different twist in the nation's college admissions scandal, a woman from Newport Beach, California, was charged Monday and agreed to plead guilty to paying $9,000 to have someone take online classes for her son so he could graduate from Georgetown University.

Karen Littlefair is the 53rd person charged with crimes in the nation's sweeping college admissions case involving Rick Singer, but her case stands out from the other 35 parents charged. She is the first parent charged in the "Varsity Blues" scandal in a cheating plot involving a student already enrolled in college rather than one seeking admission.

In a deal with prosecutors, Littlefair, 57, agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The date of her plea hearing in Boston federal court was not set.

She is the wife of Andrew Littlefair, president and CEO of Clean Energy Fuels. He was not charged in the case.

Whenever there are challenges to broad statutes, you hear prosecutors say in defense: "Don't worry; you can trust us; we would never abuse the statute." But this case is an example of why judges cannot accept those sorts of defenses. This case is just absurd.

Should the jury see a cooperating witness' factual proffer?

Justice Sotomayor isn't so sure. Here's a statement she issued today in a case where cert was denied:

For his alleged role in a group beating, petitioner Calmer Cottier was charged with, among other things, second-degree murder by an Indian in Indian country. Two other participants accepted plea deals with the Government; as part of their pleas, the participants signed statements— known as factual-basis statements—that implicated Cot-tier in the murder. A federal prosecutor also signed those inculpatory statements to vouch for their veracity. Then, that same prosecutor offered those same incriminating statements as evidence at Cottier’s trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit observed that the court in which Cottier was prosecuted “routinely” sends unredacted factual-basis statements into the jury room. 908 F. 3d 1141, 1149 (2018). I agree with the Eighth Circuit that this practice is “troubling.” Ibid. By presenting the jury with a factual-basis statement signed by the Government, the prosecution improperly ex-presses its “‘personal belief ’ ” in the truth of the witness’ statements—a stamp of approval, an assurance from the Government itself, that the witness is to be believed. United States v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 7–8 (1985). In this case, however, Cottier’s attorney did not object to the statements’ admission and used them as part of Cottier’s defense. For that reason and others expressed by the Eighth Circuit inaffirming Cottier’s convictions, I do not dissent from the denial of certiorari but instead echo its admonition that the admission of such statements “is not a favored practice.”908 F. 3d, at 1149.