Jury trials?

 Dave Ovalle and Rumpole have been covering the state court jury trial problems with COVID.  It's not good over there right now.  Here is Ovalle's article:

For Miami, the civil trial was relatively routine: an insurance dispute over building damage caused by Hurricane Irma. It was also one of the first lengthy jury trials to be held in person as Miami-Dade courts began opening up after a long pandemic closure.

The trial ended in early July. But then, several lawyers and the judges who had taken part in the two-and-a-half week trial tested positive for COVID-19.

One of the attorneys, Brittany Quintana Martí, who is pregnant, fell ill enough that she spent five days in the hospital. “She had shortness of breath and fatigue. Really horrible fatigue. Her oxygen levels dropped,” said her husband, fellow Miami lawyer Jose Martí.

***

Last week alone, the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office disclosed, seven employees were diagnosed with COVID-19. On Monday, the office announced three more employees had tested positive; that’s 17 total since courts reopened fully to the public on June 28.

Since that date, at least 19 Miami-Dade jail inmates have tested positive, according to county statistics; it’s unknown how many of those have physically been to court, although at least two were confirmed in the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building during the first week back.

That includes one Miami jail inmate who tested positive on the third day of trial for a case involving a drunk-driving car crash. The trial was delayed three weeks, and is expected to resume in the coming days.

Federal jury trials in this district have restarted without any horror stories just yet. But it seems like it is only a matter of time before there is an outbreak in court.  

How are the new SCOTUS justices judging?

 CNN has this piece, which tries to peg how "Trump's appointees are turning the Supreme Court to the right with different tactics."  The beginning of the article seemed really silly to me:

The three appointees of former President Donald Trump have together sealed the Supreme Court's conservatism for a generation, but they have revealed strikingly different methods. They diverge in their regard for practical consequences, their desire to lay down markers for future disputes and their show of internal rivalries.
Neil Gorsuch takes no prisoners. Brett Kavanaugh tries to appear conciliatory, even as he provokes internal conflict. And Amy Coney Barrett is holding her fire, for the moment.
Whether their differences intensify or fade will determine the Trump effect on the high court and how fast the law moves rightward regarding abortion rights, gun control, religion and LGBTQ clashes.

 What does that even mean?

Here's the conclusion:

Overall, the three Trump appointees voted together with fellow conservatives (Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) in the most consequential cases of the 2020-21 session.

They curtailed the reach of the Voting Rights Act, threatened the ability of states to impose disclosure requirements on political donors and strengthened property rights in the face of government regulation. That last dispute, from California, arose from union organizers' efforts to temporarily enter agricultural property to talk to migrant farmworkers.

But as the three went their individual ways, Gorsuch agreed more with far-right conservatives Thomas and Alito, while Kavanagh and Barrett aligned more with Roberts at the center-right of this nine-member bench.

Overall in the recently completed session, Gorsuch agreed most with Thomas, 73% in full and 87% in part, according to SCOTUSblog annual statistics. Meanwhile, Kavanaugh and Barrett had one of the highest rates of agreement in cases: 75% in full and 91% in part.

Trump has touted his influence on the federal judiciary as one of his greatest achievements in office. That impact will swell as his appointees across the judiciary -- especially on the high court -- gain seniority and further shape the law with their opinions.

Well, that bolded part is interesting.   

Breaking — Rubio JNC announces finalists

For Judge, they recommend David Leibowitz and Detra Shaw-Wilder  

For US Attorney, Jackie Arango, Markenzie Lapointe, and Andres Rivero  

For Marshal, Gadyaces Serralta  

First federal criminal jury trial since the pandemic...

 ... is a NOT GUILTY.

It was a carjacking and firearm case before Judge Middlebrooks.  Vic Rocha for the defense.

It will be interesting to hear the details about jury selection, masks, and so on about the case.

More to follow. 

Michael Avenatti to represent himself in California

He will be opening this morning.  I like the move as a matter of strategy.

Meghann Cuniff has some great coverage on Twitter about how it went down yesterday and in this Law.com article:

Michael Avenatti will represent himself in his California client theft trial, wrestling the spot from his taxpayer-funded lawyer minutes before a jury was empaneled Tuesday in an Orange County federal courtroom. In an extraordinary move in a high-stakes white-collar criminal case, Avenatti stood as U.S. District Judge James V. Selna’s clerk was about to swear in 12 jurors and said he had a “Faretta issue,” referring to the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court case Faretta v. California, which established defendant’s right to self represent. “No, no. Sit down. Sit down. Sit down, Michael,” his attorney, solo practitioner H. Dean Steward, told him. It didn’t work. With jurors gone for lunch, Avenatti conferenced with Steward for a few minutes then told Selna he wanted to “participate in my defense.” Avenatti told the judge jurors don’t seem to differentiate between civil and criminal defense attorneys, and he was “critically concerned that if I do not play a role in my defense that that will be held against me.” Avenatti told Selna he’s “still a member of the [California State] Bar. I’m under temporary suspension, just to be clear.” Selna warned him: “You can’t appear in this court in a capacity as an attorney with that suspension.”

Avenatti is very forceful and clear in his questioning. Not easy to describe, but that's what I keep going to. He's looking at the juror while standing at the podium, nodding and listening. Guy is talking about his panic attacks.

— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) July 20, 2021

For the Defense Podcast: William Pryor

 

Dear Friends,   This mini-season was too short!  I can't believe we are already at the finale... with Chief Judge of the 11th Circuit, William H. Pryor. I think it's a wonderful conversation and I hope you enjoy it. You can access it on Apple, Spotify, or any other platform from our website here. Judge Pryor, who made President Trump's short list of three potential Justices for Justice Scalia's seat, currently serves on the court of appeals, but he also served on the Sentencing Commission and as Alabama Attorney General, so we will have a lot to discuss.  (He's also an award winning timpanist!). It's not too late to catch up on Seasons 1 and 2 if you missed them (both of which are approved for CLE credits in Florida) or the other two episodes of Season 3 (with Judges Charles Breyer and Robin Rosenbaum).  This mini-season with judges also has been approved for CLE, and I give out the code at the end of this episode, so just listen until the end. Here's a picture of Judges Pryor and Breyer (who visited with us on the first episode of this season) together at the Sentencing Commission a few years ago in their seersucker suits: We are already working on Season 4, so thank you for your support and feedback.  It's really appreciated.  If you have a second and could leave a comment on Apple Podcast or the other podcast platforms, I would be grateful! If you have a friend that would like to receive these updates, please have them sign up here.   Hosted by David Oscar Markus and produced by rakontur

The Florida Supreme Court has jumped the shark

 I mean, is the Court really going to deny CLE credit for organizations (including the Florida Bar and ABA!) who require diverse CLE panels?  Apparently so.  From Law.com:

Attorneys, professional organizations and legal experts are lashing out at the Florida Supreme Court for a rule that is shaking up lawyers’ ability to receive credit for continuing-education courses required to keep practicing.
The controversial rule, issued by the court in April, prohibits The Florida Bar from approving continuing-education courses offered by any sponsor “that uses quotas based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability or sexual orientation in the selection of faculty or participants.”
The court’s decision came in response to a move by The Florida Bar’s Business Law Section, which had adopted a policy regulating composition of faculty at section-sponsored continuing legal education programs.
The Bar section’s policy “imposes quotas” requiring a minimum number of “diverse” faculty, defining diversity in terms of membership in “groups based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and multiculturalism,” the court’s April 15 order said.
The section’s diversity requirement was similar to one endorsed by the American Bar Association in 2016, which means the Supreme Court’s order has also jeopardized Florida lawyers’ participation in ABA continuing-education courses.

The ABA struck back with this brief, authored by appellate gurus Elliot H. Scherker and Brigid F. Cech Samole.  It also issued this press release.

There has been lots of criticism of the Court's opinion, including articles like this one from Above the Law, which concludes like this: "Please tell me what century the Florida Supreme Court is in, because it sure doesn’t look like mine or does it?"

The ol' grouping reversal

 Joe Exotic's conviction was affirmed.  But he got a new sentencing based on a grouping violation under the Sentencing Guidelines.

A win is a win.

The opinion is here.

AP story:

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that “Tiger King” Joe Exotic should get a shorter prison sentence for his role in a murder-for-hire plot and violating federal wildlife laws.

Joe Exotic, whose real name is Joseph Maldonado-Passage, was sentenced in January 2020 to 22 years in federal prison after being convicted of trying to hire two different men to kill animal rights activist Carole Baskin. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver found that the trial court wrongly treated those two convictions separately in calculating his prison term under sentencing guidelines.

The blond mullet-wearing zookeeper, known for his expletive-laden rants on YouTube and a failed 2018 Oklahoma gubernatorial campaign, was prominently featured in the popular Netflix documentary “Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness.”

The panel agreed with Maldonado-Passage that the court should have treated them as one conviction at sentencing because they both involved the same goal of killing Baskin, who runs a rescue sanctuary for big cats in Florida. According to the ruling, the court should have calculated his advisory sentencing range to be between 17 1/2 years and just under 22 years in prison, rather than between just under 22 years and 27 years in prison. The court ordered the trial court to re-sentence Maldonado-Passage.