Sparring with Scalia

One of my former (and one of my favorite) law professors, Arthur Miller, took a shot at Justice Scalia during an oral argument today and Scalia took a shot back. Here's the Washington Post's coverage of the fun exchanges:

A Bit of Brooklyn in the Supreme Court
Thursday, March 29, 2007; A17
Deference, with maybe just a touch of obsequiousness, is the rule for lawyers taking their cases before the nine justices of the Supreme Court.
So when Harvard law professor Arthur R. Miller yesterday mixed it up a little with the court's ever-ready pugilist Antonin Scalia, some of those in the packed courtroom later talked about it as one of those did-you-hear-that moments at the court.
Miller, whose white hair and dark, bushy eyebrows are familiar from his legal commentaries on ABC and his debate-style shows on PBS, is representing investors who want to sue Tellabs, alleging securities fraud. [Story, Page D3.]
Congress has set a high bar for such lawsuits: Plaintiffs must show not just credible allegations but a "strong inference" that the company acted with wrongful intent.
The justices wondered whether you could assign a percentage to such a "strong inference," a 33 percent chance plaintiffs could convince a jury the allegations were true, a more than 50 percent chance?
"I think it's 66 2/3 ," Scalia said, pulling another number out of the air.
"Is that because you never met a plaintiff you really liked?" Miller asked the conservative Scalia.
The room erupted in laughter. Scalia smiled. A little.
Miller backpedaled. A little. "I took a liberty there with the justice," Miller said.
But it was not over.
Scalia's chance came later, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. prepared to pounce on one of Miller's arguments. Miller stopped him first.
"Don't take me literally on that," Miller said. "For heaven's sakes, I'm from Brooklyn. I'm very colloquial. I'm very sorry about that.''
"Let me write that down," Scalia said with a satisfied smile. "We should not take you literally. All right."
Roberts was set to rule. "Okay, you two are even now."
-- Robert Barnes

Cert granted

The United States Supreme Court has taken a case from the Southern District of Florida, U.S. v. Williams, a case about the constitutionality of a child pornography law:

The [11th Circuit] court panel found the pandering provision of the PROTECT Act of 2003 was overbroad and impermissibly vague, saying that it criminalizes the speech of someone who touts material as child pornography when in fact it is clean or nonexistent.In the appeals court's view, the pandering provision could apply to an e-mail entitled "Good pics of kids in bed" sent by a grandparent, with innocent pictures attached of grandchildren in pajamas. One sender might be a proud grandparent while another might be a convicted child molester who hopes to trade for more graphic photos with like-minded recipients, the appeals court said. In asking the court to take the case, the Bush administration said the appeals court read the law's language more broadly than is warranted.

Judge Middlebrooks initially found the law was constitutional. Judges Barkett, Wilson and Reavley were the 11th Circuit panel that reversed (in an opinion by Judge Reavley,who was visiting from the Fifth Circuit), finding the Protect Act vague and overbroad. Rick Diaz and Lou Guerra represented Mr. Williams, who is now headed to Washington...

"Miami’s Acosta dragged into political spotlight"

That was the headline in today's DBR regarding the motion to reduce Jack Abramoff's sentence. Apparently, there has been criticism of Alex Acosta for this motion, which criticism is just silly. Here's the motion; and here's the intro to the article:

Federal prosecutors in Miami were caught off guard by criticism from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Washington who suggested they were going soft on convicted former lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta was flying to Colombia on Thursday when Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, criticized a proposed sentence reduction for the former Greenberg Traurig lobbyist at the center of one of the biggest corruption scandals in Washington. “Is he a Bushie?” Reid asked about Acosta. Tensions have been mounting between Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House over a scandal over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys allegedly for political reasons. Sources close to the Abramoff case bristled at Reid’s criticism, saying a recent court filing to secure a reduction for Abramoff was routine and that the disgraced former lobbyist was central to bringing down several high profile officials.

Reid is wrong to criticize Acosta. If Reid doesn't like the Sentencing Guidelines and the way that Rule 35 works, then let's change it. But right now, when someone provides substantial assistance, he gets a reduction in his sentence -- for better or for worse.

Weekend reading

For those of you who missed the SDFLA stories this weekend because you were too busy watching hoops or eating elephant ears at the Youth Fair:

1. "Green Beret now under arrest claims life of secret intrigue." (Miami Herald)

2. "Defense lawyers for Kenneth Wilk will not be permitted to tell jurors that the sheriff's deputy he killed had steroids in his system at the time of the shooting, a federal judge in Fort Lauderdale ruled Friday." (Sun-Sentinel)

3. "A Fort Lauderdale jury ruling in a federal discrimination case lashed out at Broward Community College on Thursday in a scathing letter citing evidence of religious bias in the college's theology department." (Sun-Sentinel)

4. "A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss the terrorism support charges against alleged al-Qaida operative Jose Padilla, rejecting defense claims that his 3 1/2 years in custody as an enemy combatant violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial." (AP)

The "light disguise" trend

After asking for its witnesses to testify in "light disguise" in the Ze'ev Rosenstein case(coverage here, here and here), the feds are now asking for the same thing in the Jose Padilla case for an instructor for the CIA. (Judge Dimitrouleas had ruled that the Israeli agents could testify in light disguise but required them to use their real names. Rosenstein ended up pleading guilty, so this issue never came to light at trial and appeal).

In the Padilla case, the Government isn't asking for for the disguise because the agent is currently assigned overseas, but instead because he could be assigned overseas, according to a statement filed by Suzanne M. Fleischauer, information review officer for the CIA's clandestine service. "For CIA officers to effectively and clandestinely collect intelligence and conduct operations around the world, they cannot openly admit that they work for the CIA," Fleischauer said. "The safety of this covert CIA officer is of paramount concern because of the high-threat areas of the world in which he has worked."

Here is the AP coverage and the Herald coverage.

Jack Abramoff's sentence to be reduced

No surprise here -- the Government has filed a motion to reduce Jack Abramoff's sentence pursuant to Rule 35 based on his "substantial assistance" in his case and other investigations. Apparently, he is still working with investigators from his prison cell in Cumberland, Md.

Any bets on how much time Judge Huck will hack off the sentence? I'll put the over/under at one third, the standard reduction in the Southern District of Florida....

"Federal prosecutors get OK to seek death penalty for man accused of murdering deputy"

That was the headline in yesterday's Sun-Sentinel: "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal filed by murder suspect Kenneth Wilk, clearing the path for federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty at his April trial."

Fixed!

The 11th Circuit reissued Thompson v. United States today, clearing up the name mess that I discussed here and here. It inserted the other DM's middle name Scott. And the Court even dropped a footnote: "This opinion is not referring to attorney David Oscar Markus, who was not involved in the case."

What a relief.

Added: For the record, I think David Scott Markus is a good guy and a good lawyer, and I am sorry the name confusion has brought unwarranted attention to this opinion.