News & Notes

 1. There's a lot of prosecutorial misconduct in the Southern District of Florida.  But get a load of this case out of Texas (via the AP):

Texas’ highest criminal court on Wednesday overturned a death row inmate’s capital murder conviction because one of the prosecutors in his 2003 trial was moonlighting as a clerk for the judge in the case.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the arrangement between Midland County State District Judge John Hyde and then-prosecutor Weldon Petty clearly violated Clinton Young’s right to a fair trial. Young was convicted and sentenced to death in the shooting of a man during a 2001 drug-related crime rampage across Texas.

Hyde died in 2012, but Midland County prosecutors in 2019 discovered the paid arrangement between the judge and Petty, who had also been working on the side for other district judges for years.

The appeals court noted that as a prosecutor, Petty would oppose defense motions while also drafting recommendations of denial for judges to sign. As part of the legal team prosecuting Young, Petty drafted the legal motions submitted during the trial and sometimes participated in oral arguments.

Petty’s side agreement with Hyde was to perform “legal work” as a judicial clerk outside of his official duties. It paid him more $9,000 over the time spanning Young’s initial indictment, trial and post-conviction appeals, which Petty handled both as prosecutor and as clerk for the judge, the appeals court noted.

“Judicial and prosecutorial misconduct, in the form of an undisclosed employment relationship between the trial judge and the prosecutor appearing before him, tainted (Young’s) entire proceeding from the outset,” the court wrote. “As a result, little confidence can be placed in the fairness of the proceedings or the outcome of (Young’s) trial.”

Alrighty then.

2. Here's an interesting case out of the 9th Circuit that will, I'm sure, be heard by the Supreme Court. From the intro:

We once again consider the application of the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement to new forms of communication technology. See, e.g., United States v. Cano, 934 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2019); cf. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018). “When confronting [such] concerns wrought by digital technology, th[e] [Supreme] Court [and this court] ha[ve] been careful not to uncritically extend existing precedents.” Id. at 2222.

Our question this time concerns the private search exception to the Fourth Amendment—specifically, the intersection between electronic communications providers’ control over material on their own servers and the Fourth Amendment’s restriction of warrantless searches and seizures, which limits only governmental action. See Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 (1921); Walter v. United States, 447 U.S. 649 (1980); United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).

The events giving rise to Luke Wilson’s conviction and this appeal were triggered when Google, as required by federal law, reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) that Wilson had uploaded four images of apparent child pornography to his email account as email attachments. No one at Google had opened or viewed Wilson’s email attachments; its report was based on an automated assessment that the images Wilson uploaded were the same as images other Google employees had earlier viewed and classified as child pornography. Someone at NCMEC then, also without opening or viewing them, sent Wilson’s email attachments to the San Diego Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC), where an officer ultimately viewed the email attachments without a warrant. The officer then applied for warrants to search both Wilson’s email account and Wilson’s home, describing the attachments in detail in the application. 

Our question is whether the government’s warrantless search of Wilson’s email attachments was justified by the private search exception to the Fourth Amendment. See Walter, 447 U.S. at 655–56; Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113–14. For the reasons that follow, we hold that it was not. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of Wilson’s motion to suppress and vacate Wilson’s conviction.

Federal Bar Association Annual Meeting

 The SDFLA Federal Bar Association is hosting the big national convention here in Miami.  Last night there was a reception welcoming Judge Altonaga as our new Chief Judge.  Below is a picture (courtesy of Margot Moss) of the Chief speaking at the event, which had really cool courtroom art displayed all throughout the room.  I still think cameras in the courtroom would be a big improvement over the pictures, but it was fun to walk around and see the old drawings.  Congrats again to Judge Altonaga!

Breaking -- WPB Magistrate Judge short list

 Thanks to a great tipster, I know now that the 5 lawyers who made the short list for Magistrate Judge in West Palm Beach are:

-AUSA Brandy Galler

-AUSA Randy Katz

-Ryon McCabe, McCabe Rabin

-AFPD Penny Birch

-Patti Leonard, Shutts & Bowen

Congrats to the finalists.

Also, it turns out that I missed regular blogging more than I thought I would.  So I am going to take the reins back for a while.  I want to thank the guest bloggers for their amazing posts and the time that they spent on the blog.  They will hopefully still post, especially when I need some help.  But for now -- for better or worse -- you have me back for a while.  

More Defenders on the Bench, Please.

 By Margot Moss

Although President Biden took office with the fewest judicial vacancies for a new president in over 3 decades, nearly 50 federal judges announced their retirement since Biden's inauguration.  This nearly doubles his opportunities to appoint lifetime judges.  

With these vacancies, President Biden and his top lawyers are making an effort to increase professional and demographic diversity.  Just yesterday, Veronica Rossman, a longtime assistant federal defender, was confirmed by the Senate to the Tenth Circuit.  She will join other former federal defenders on the Circuit Bench, including Ketanji Brown Jackson (D.C. Circuit), Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. (First Circuit), and Eunice C. Lee (Second Circuit) - who also all happen to be individuals of color.  Still awaiting confirmation is Candace Jackson-Akiwumi (Seventh Circuit), who practiced for over 10 years as an assistant federal defender.  Former public defenders are also being appointed to the District Court bench, including Omar A. Williams (D. Ct.), Jia M. Cobb (D.D.C.), Margaret Strickland (D.N.M.), and many others. 

But we still need more!  At a time when diversity is encouraged and applauded, this should include diversity of legal background as well.

No update yet on the two openings in our District.  Note that Michael Caruso is on the list of finalists.  Not only is he the Federal Defender, but he is also a fellow blogger! 

 

Happy Autumn Equinox!  Can’t believe the year has gone by so fast. 

Judge Bloom strikes down sanctuary city ban

From the Miami Herald:

A federal judge in Miami on Tuesday blocked Florida from enforcing a ban on so-called sanctuary cities, declaring portions of a law unconstitutional and tinged with “discriminatory motives.”

The judge’s ruling struck down a key portion of the 2019 law that prohibits local and state officials from adopting “sanctuary” policies for undocumented migrants, a main focus for Gov. Ron DeSantis, who vowed to ban “sanctuary cities” in Florida when running for governor in 2018 even though there were none in the state.

The judge also blocked the state from enforcing a provision in the law that requires law enforcement officers and agencies to “use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law” when they are acting within their official duties.

But the court allowed other provisions to stand, including one that required state and local law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers — federal requests to hold undocumented immigrants past their release dates so that immigration agents can pick them up.

However, the judge blocked a provision that said local and state agencies could transport detainees who are subject to an immigration detainer to federal custody outside of their jurisdiction because it is “preempted by federal immigration law and is therefore unconstitutional.”

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the city of South Miami and other organizations, including the Florida Immigration Coalition, against DeSantis in an effort to strike down the law.

“The verdict validates what we said three years ago, Governor DeSantis pushed for a law that is not just racist, but unconstitutional,” said Antonio Tovar, a board member of both the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworkers Association of Florida, another group that joined the case.

Here's the 110 page order. 

In praise of trial lawyers

By Michael Caruso

Unlike David, I'm not a naturally gifted trial lawyer. Any skill I've managed to acquire over the years is from watching and learning from my colleagues at the Federal Defender's office.  When I started, lawyers like Hector, Mary, Miguel, Joaquin, Manny, Omar, and Ken were my role models for how to try a case. And my current colleagues continue to inspire me with their grit, creativity, and ability. 

One cross-examination I saw when I was a young lawyer stands out in my memory. An assistant federal defender—Richard—was trying a case that lawyers sometimes call a "slow plea." A challenging case. 

As usual, the arresting agent wrote a report of his investigation. On direct, however, he testified to seemingly critical facts that were not in his report. When he had a chance to ask questions, Richard pressed him on these "new" facts. The agent, when confronted, responded that he had an exceptional memory and powers of recall. 

Richard reached the end of his questions. Despite his best efforts, the agent inflicted damage and Richard looked beaten. Gathering his notes, Richard turned to walk back to the table where his client sat. But, before he sat down, he returned to the lectern. 

He looked at the agent and asked: "What were the first three questions I asked you?" Richard let the "uh...." hang just long enough in the air before he sat down and said, "No further questions."

Richard's work left a lasting impression on me. His tenacity, inventiveness, and courage are all traits I've tried to emulate. 

This trial happened a very long time ago, and my memory may be faulty as to all of the circumstances. I would've double-checked with the transcript, but the jury found Richard's client not guilty, and no transcript was ordered.

 

REMORSE

            By Phil Reizenstein

          Fall brings to my religion the unseasonal concept of atonement and renewal, something usually associated with spring. There is the new year, followed ten days later by Yom Kippur- the Day of Atonement. In between is a time of introspection. Atonement is what follows remorse for transgressions. 

Federal courts have no problem considering “lack of remorse” as a valid sentencing factor: “In the instant case, the district court did not err in considering Bryant's lack of remorse and her disrespect for the law evinced by her allocution, in sentencing her to a term of imprisonment at the higher end of the Guidelines range. United States v. Bryant, 618 Fed. Appx. 586, 590 (11th Cir. 2015).

While it has been black-letter law in Florida for decades that lack of remorse was not a permissible sentencing factor, the First District en banc has had enough of  that trifling concept, recently holding that since remorse means an expression of desire to rehabilitate, lack of remorse means that the defendant may continue with their criminal ways and should be sentenced accordingly: “ For these reasons, we can no longer embrace the blanket, judge-made rule that when it comes to sentencing lack of remorse or failure to accept responsibility may not be considered.” Davis v. State, 268 So. 3d 958, 965 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), review granted, SC19-716, 2019 WL 2427789 (Fla. June 11, 2019). The Florida Supreme Court has yet to rule on this issue although the case is fully briefed and was argued in 2019.  Considering the Court’s  new-found enthusiasm for reversing precedent, it is not looking good.

We’ve been down this path before in our country: judges and legal systems punishing defendants for a perceived lack of remorse. In at least one famous instance, the legal system blinked first.

 In May of 1961, Freedom Riders from Alabama rode into Mississippi and entered the “Whites Only” waiting room of the bus station in Jackson and were arrested (after being beaten).

 Parchman State Prison in Mississippi was and is as notorious a prison as there is in the United States. In 1961 prisoners in Parchman  were forced to work on chain gangs.  A Jackson, Mississippi state judge had the bright idea to send the Freedom Riders to Parchman, believing Parchman would put the fear of g-d into the Riders and end the rides. The Freedom Riders had other ideas. They decided to fill up Parchman and sent more buses to Jackson. Once inside Parchman the Freedom Riders began to sing: “More buses are a coming oh yeah.  Better get you ready, oh yeah.  More buses are a coming, more buses are a coming, better get you ready, oh yeah.”

Eight and ten men were placed in cells built for two. The Riders would not keep quiet and kept singing, so the guards threatened to take away their mattresses, which caused the Freedom Riders to sing: “You’re  going to take our mattresses, oh yeah. You’re going to  our mattresses oh yeah. You’re going to take our mattresses, you’re going to take our mattresses, you’re going to take our mattresses, oh yeah.”

Over 300 Freedom Riders were arrested in Mississippi in 1961, and many of them were sent to Parchman, and they never stopped singing. Sometimes a lack of remorse is not a bad thing, even in this season of atonement.

Phil Reizenstein

For The Federal Court Personal Injury Lawyer

By: Alaina Fotiu-Wojtowicz

Between forum selection clauses and defendants’ tendency to remove state law claims whenever there is complete diversity, premises liability and other personal injury cases end up in federal court more frequently than you might expect.  But even so, Judge Altman’s recent 37-page summary judgment order in the Torres v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. case is unusual – not only for its length, but also for its depth of discussion on state-law, premises liability negligence issues.

Torres is in many respects the quintessential slip-and-fall, premises liability case.  The plaintiff, Nosleyki Torres, slipped and fell on a puddle of water while shopping at Wal-Mart.  The case was removed by Wal-Mart after Mr. Torres filed in Broward County Circuit Court.

Judge Altman’s order is an entertaining discussion of constructive notice, causation, and the type of disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) from hybrid treating physician expert witnesses who will testify as to causation at trial.  The order comes complete with citations to Eleventh Circuit precedent, both in and out of jurisdiction trial court opinions, John Adams’s correspondence, and perhaps most importantly, “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”

At its core, however, the order reiterates that, even in a federal court personal injury suit, or perhaps especially in such a case, it is the jury's role to determine questions of fact:

Who should decide whether, in weighing its important interest in reducing overhead costs against an invitee’s right to amble freely through un-puddled aisles, Wal-Mart has struck the right balance? A life-tenured judge no one elected? A jury of both parties’ peers? The answer—to us—seems clear.

. . .

If we are, as we were meant to be, a democracy—and if Adams was right in suggesting that everyday jurors are the “heart and lungs” of that democracy—then we should let jurors (not unelected judges) make these policy choices for us.

The entire opinion is worth a read and is available here.