SCOTUS affirms two 11th Circuit cases

 The most conservative Supreme Court in decades (ever?) affirmed the most conservative appellate court (the 11th) in two criminal cases yesterday.  SCOTUSblog covers them:

Justices reject sentencing reductions for some crack-cocaine offenders ("The court in Terry v. United States ruled 9-0 that, based on the text, a Trump-era law making retroactive Obama-era sentencing reductions does not apply to low-level offenders.")

 

Court limits new trials for people with felon-in-possession convictions ("In Greer v. United States, the court unanimously curtailed the retroactive application of its 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States regarding felons in possession of a firearm.") 

Justices file financial reports

 If you're interested in the Justices' side gigs -- like adjunct teaching and book writing -- this report is for you.  SCOTUSblog summarizes it all here:

Sotomayor and Gorsuch reported healthy outside income from book advances and royalties. Sotomayor has several books under her belt, including her 2013 memoir My Beloved World and books for middle schoolers and younger children, that last year yielded her $212,181 in advances and royalties – just short of her salary of $265,600. Gorsuch reported $623.92 in royalties from Princeton University Press, presumably from his 2009 book on assisted suicide and euthanasia, as well as $100,000 in royalties from Penguin Random House for his recent book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It.

Luck (and Carnes) v. Marcus

 Woah, this opinion a doozy.  Thanks to my commenters for pointing it out to me.  Apparently it's been the talk of the (appellate) town and I initially missed it.

I don't even know how to describe it... you must read this opinion -- about a mansion in Palm Beach -- for yourself.  It's 136 pages of back and forth between two of the most conservative judges in the country (Luck in the majority, joined by Carnes, against Marcus in dissent).  And it gets really personal.  Here's the first salvo to give you a flavor:

The “irony today” is not, as the dissenting opinion says, that we have done as the Supreme Court has instructed and conducted an independent examination of the whole record relating to Burns’s constitutional claims. Dissenting Op. at 73. The “irony today” is that it is the dissenting opinion that goes beyond the “whole record” in this case, the record developed by the parties and put before the district court. The dissenting opinion consults extra-record sources and draws from them the “facts” that it determines support its conclusion. Throughout the dissenting opinion, it laments the “incomplete record” and the “limited record” that’s before us. Id. at 74, 123 n.5. So, the dissenting opinion escapes the confines of the record to look for evidence that the parties never put forward and the district court never considered.  

I'm no civil lawyer, so I can't tell you who is right.  And I'm no architect or student of these types of homes, so I don't know who has the better of the argument here (maybe renaissance man Rumpole can help) even though both opinions have pictures and tons of historical references.

I'm just here for the food fight! Just to give you a sense, the majority opinion references the dissent 98 times.*  I wonder how Judge Marcus felt when he read Judge Luck's opinion saying that he (Marcus) didn't understand "the way appellate review works."  

The opinion is also noteworthy because just a few months ago, Judge Luck joined an opinion by Judge Newsom criticizing Judge Rosenbaum for being too personal.  As I explained here, I thought that criticism was way off and that Judge Rosenbaum was anything but personal in her dissent.  

So something must be going on to get Judge Luck so upset in this pretty mundane civil dispute.  Anyone know the backstory?

*I simply did a find "dissent" and got 98 hits, so that number may be slightly off.  But you get the idea.

Trials are coming back!

 Judge Ruiz is ready to go.  He's picking a pilot jury this week... 

“Federal prisoners hold $100 million in government-run accounts, shielded from some criminal scrutiny and debt collection“

 That’s the title of this WaPo article. From the intro:

Federal prison inmates are keeping large sums of money — in some cases more than $100,000 each — in government-run deposit accounts effectively shielded from court orders for things like child support, alimony or other debts, and not subject to the same scrutiny as accounts owned by non-incarcerated citizens, according to court documents and interviews.
Within the Federal Bureau of Prisons system, which houses roughly 129,000 inmates in facilities throughout the United States, there are more than 20 inmate accounts holding more than $100,000 each for a total exceeding $3 million, a person familiar with the program told The Washington Post. In all, the combined value of such inmate accounts recently topped $100 million, this person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the program that have remained out of public view.
The program run by the Bureau of Prisons has long frustrated and angered law enforcement officials from other agencies, who say it poses significant risks for abuse, money laundering and corruption, yet the agency, already plagued with staffing and management problems, has for years resisted efforts to change it because its leaders maintain they are already diligent about making inmates pay what they owe.

What the article fails to mention is that many inmates have no choice but to use the prison bank account because the government has forced banks to close all private accounts. This is one of the many awful consequences of merely being charged with a crime. Even without a conviction, banks will refuse you as a customer if you’ve been convicted or after you’ve served your time. 

UM Law School

 There's been a lot of drama over at the University of Miami School of Law and the firing of the Dean.  I haven't covered the story, but it's making national press.  Here's the latest from the Miami Herald:

Meeting with tenured law school faculty after abruptly firing the law school dean last week, University of Miami President Julio Frenk doubled down on his decision to dismiss Anthony Varona after less than two years on the job, much of that time during the pandemic when schools have been struggling.

Frenk, who met with the professors Wednesday night, did not provide a detailed explanation for removing Varona, saying he didn’t find that appropriate, according to sources who attended the meeting over Zoom.

Rather, he told the group that the dean reports to him and he has the power to remove him, the sources said. Frenk reports to the university’s Board of Trustees, who named Laurie Silvers, the vice chair and a 15-year member of the Board, as the new chair last Thursday.

Silvers, a graduate of Miami Beach High, the University of Miami (Class of ‘74) and UM School of Law (Class of ‘77), replaced Hilarie Bass, a prominent Miami attorney whose two-year term expired in May.

Frenk, who was named UM president in 2015, didn’t apologize for not consulting faculty regarding Varona’s termination, a procedure stipulated in the university’s faculty manual. He did say, however, he would stay in touch with the professors as he makes future decisions.

“As he shared with tenured faculty at the law school last night, President Frenk is committed to consultation as we proceed with next steps,” UM spokeswoman Megan Ondrizek said in an email Thursday.

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article251873708.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article251873708.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article251873708.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article251873708.html#storylink=cpy

Guest post by Roy Black about F. Lee Bailey

 BY ROY BLACK: David invited me to write a few words about my old friend Lee Bailey and at first I hesitated but decided I owed it to Lee to tell his story. Francis Lee Bailey Jr., who for some reason preferred F. Lee Bailey, captured the imagination of all the young criminal defense lawyers back in the 60's and 70's. Some even adopted the affection of initializing their first name in homage to Bailey. Bailey did things differently right from the start. He didn’t undergo some type of apprenticeship, but instead started with a bang – an unbelievable string of major trial successes. Just one year out of law school he took on the case of Dr. Sam Sheppard who had just been convicted of killing his wife in a trial surrounded by outrageous poisonous publicity. Bailey took it all the way to the Supreme Court and Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966), became a landmark ruling reversing Sheppard's conviction in an 8-1 decision because of the "carnival atmosphere" of the trial. Tell me another lawyer who beats that career start.

And it got better. Sheppard became the inspiration behind "The Fugitive" hit television series and later into The Fugitive film starring Harrison Ford. I don’t have the space to go into all his trial best hits but I suggest you read about the trials of another doctor, Carl A. Coppolino. It became the best book on trials I have ever read, No Deadly Drug by John D. MacDonald. Most of Bailey's examinations and arguments are completely reproduced and are a golden resource for young criminal lawyers. A must read.

One side effect of following Bailey's career was the number of great books it spawned. This is long before youtube videos and trial lawyer dvds full of practice tips. When I was a PD I learned trial advocacy by reading about trials in books. Of course I read all of Bailey’s practice manuals. His best were the early ones co-authored with Henry Rothblatt: Investigation and Preparation of Criminal Cases (1970); and Successful Techniques for Criminal Trials (1971) but there were plenty of others. I read them so often the pages began to fall apart. I wanted to be like Bailey. All the books and articles he and others wrote on his trials was just one way his career had a significant impact on young aspiring criminal lawyers. They were far better than the measly one criminal law course available then in law school. I spent many hours dissecting his cross examinations and trial strategy writing my conclusions as marginalia in the books. 

Then the OJ Simpson case hit the national consciousness. Lee was brought in by his old friend and colleague Bob Shapiro. For some reason the case caused them to hate each other. Bob became the major adverse witness against Lee in the federal contempt case and the Florida Bar disbarment action. The intense publicity, televised mayhem and brutal backlash of the OJ trial, like the curse from King Tut's tomb, cratered legal careers.

Bailey was given the toughest assignment of the OJ trial, the cross-examination of LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman. Bailey intensely questioned Fuhrman and at the time I thought he hadn't really damaged him. Little did I know. By the end of the trial the defense unearthed further evidence corroborating Lee’s cross and caused the utter destruction of Fuhrman's credibility. Fuhrman and Lee’s cross became the focal point of Johnnie Cochran's fabulous final argument, especially the controversial Hitler comparison. It was Bailey's work that made this possible. The OJ trial crosses we still remember are Fuhrman by Bailey and Wong by Barry Sheck.

But this fabulous career came to a crashing end.

No matter what the obits say Lee Bailey died the day he was disbarred by the florida bar.  Once florida disbarred him Lee lost his reason for being. He was a trial lawyer and lived for the battle. He couldn’t survive as a non-combatant. During his last ditch effort to get re-admitted in Maine he told me he was gearing up to defend a criminal case for a police officer and he felt like a young lawyer again. Yet Maine decided it was bound to follow florida's lead and ended the dream of a comeback. The great career was finished.

Lee spent thousands of hours teaching at bar CLE courses throughout the country. He never turned them down. Even during the Patty Hearst trial he took a weekend off to teach a course. But when he needed help with the bar all he got was a knife in the back. None of the great names showed up for him. We criminal lawyers are treated with disdain all the way to the bitter end.

Roy Black, Esq.

RIP F. Lee Bailey

 So sad to hear this news.  He was one of the absolute best.  He just finished a book about the O.J. trial and was so proud of it.  I'm sad that he won't be able to see it out there.  Here are some great pictures of him from two of the biggest trials in history (both wins):

 

I'm glad that I had the opportunity to recently interview him.  What a character.  What a lawyer.  

This exchange shows the fire he still had at 88 years old, and I hope he had the chance to pee on this guy's grave!

Here is the gunslinger Bailey explaining what he told the newspaper editor who had it out for Sheppard, including the threat to pee on his grave: pic.twitter.com/cVefhkI1Wg

— David Oscar Markus (@domarkus) December 1, 2020