Is 10 days in jail sufficient for someone who sent an innocent man to jail for 25 years?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Here is the NY Times story covering the issue:

For what may be the first time on record, a former prosecutor in Texas is going to jail for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence in a murder trial. The 10-day jail sentence for the prosecutor, Ken Anderson, is insultingly short — the victim of his misconduct, Michael Morton, spent nearly 25 years in prison. But because prosecutors are so rarely held accountable for their misconduct, the sentence is remarkable nonetheless.
In 1987, Mr. Morton was convicted of beating to death his wife, Christine, and sentenced to life in prison. He maintained his innocence, and in 2010 DNA testing confirmed that he was not the killer.

Even before a Texas court vacated Mr. Morton’s conviction, his lawyers alleged that Mr. Anderson, the prosecutor in his case, had deliberately withheld evidence that would have exonerated him. During Mr. Morton’s trial, the judge had ordered Mr. Anderson to turn over any such evidence and received only a few documents in return. In fact, Mr. Anderson possessed many documents he did not turn over, including a transcript of a phone conversation revealing that the Mortons’ 3-year-old son had described his mother’s killer as a “monster” who was not his father.

Mr. Anderson, who later became a judge, has said he did not consider the judge’s order official because it was not written down. But he was fully aware of his ethical duty to disclose important exculpatory evidence and that a failure to disclose violates due process rights under the Constitution. In April, a judicial investigation found probable cause to believe that Mr. Anderson was in criminal contempt for withholding the documents. On Friday, he pleaded no contest. In addition to receiving the jail sentence, he was disbarred and stripped of his law license.

This case may sound extreme, but prosecutorial misconduct is far too common, and the remedies for it, if any, usually come long after the harm has been done. Criminal defense lawyers have called for judges to issue a standard written order reminding prosecutors of their ethical duty and to warn them of contempt charges if they do not comply. Prosecutors should welcome this practice to reinforce professional standards and identify the wrongdoers among them.

It's official -- Robin Rosenbaum nominated to 11th Circuit

Here's the President's press release:

President Obama Nominates Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum for a seat on the United States Court of Appeals.

President Obama said, "Judge Rosenbaum has a long and impressive record of service and a history of handing down fair and judicious decisions. She will be a thoughtful and distinguished addition to the 11th Circuit, and I am extremely pleased to put her forward.”

Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum:  Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum is a United States District Court Judge in the Southern District of Florida, a position she has held since her appointment in 2012.  Since 2009, Judge Rosenbaum has also taught as an adjunct professor at the University of Miami School of Law.  From 2007 until her confirmation to the district court, Judge Rosenbaum served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida.  From 1998 to 2007, she was an Assistant United States Attorney in the same district, where she served as Chief of the Economic Crimes Section in the Fort Lauderdale office beginning in 2002.   Before joining the United States Attorney’s Office, Judge Rosenbaum clerked for Judge Stanley Marcus on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 1998, worked as a litigation associate at Holland & Knight from 1996 to 1997, and served as staff counsel at the Office of the Independent Counsel in Washington, D.C. from 1995 to 1996.  She began her legal career as a trial attorney at the Federal Programs Branch of the United States Department of Justice from 1991 to 1995.   Judge Rosenbaum received her J.D. magna cum laude in 1991 from the University of Miami School of Law and her B.A. in 1988 from Cornell University.

Congrats to Judge Rosenbaum!

In other Rosenbaum news, she was assigned to handle the Homesick Hijacker case.  Apparently in mag court today, Mr. Potts protested the proceedings going forward:

"I would like to — I'm new at this stuff," Potts told U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia Otazo-Reyes. "With total respect — I have to protest these proceedings."

But Otazo-Reyes cut Potts off before he could explain, saying all she wanted to know was whether he could afford a lawyer. Potts said he had earned about 200 Cuban pesos a month as a farmer outside Havana and had no other appreciable assets or income.

The judge appointed a federal public defender to represent him and Potts did not speak again about his objection.

 

Now the question is, who will this case get dumped on...  But before Judge Rosenbaum gets confirmed, she will have to sentence Kim Rothstein next week.  That should be interesting.

11th Circuit Judge Dubina has taken senior status

It became official on his birthday October 26.  (h/t Glenn Sugameli).

President Obama now has another seat to fill in the 11th.  Robin Rosenbaum is being vetted for the recently vacated seat by Judge Barkett.

The Court has a number of open seats on the 11th right now and has a chance to really reshape the Court.  Let's see what happens.

"Homesick Hijacker"

This guy has been on the lam for 30 years but is planning to argue that he has served his time because he did 13 years in a Cuban prison.  From Curt Anderson:

An American who hijacked an airliner to Cuba nearly 30 years ago as a self-described revolutionary flew back home Wednesday to face U.S. justice.

FBI agents took William Potts, 56, into custody shortly after his charter flight from Havana landed at Miami International Airport, said FBI spokesman Mike Leverock. Potts faces a 1985 federal indictment charging him with air piracy for hijacking a Piedmont Airlines flight in 1984.

In interviews prior to leaving Cuba, Potts said he was seeking “closure” and hoped to convince U.S. prosecutors to give him credit for the 13-plus years he spent in Cuban prison for hijacking the flight. The U.S. charge carries a sentence of between 20 years and life in prison, according to federal prosecutors.

“My position is I am a free man. I have served my time,” Potts said. “But they seem to have another concept. They are going to take control of me. I will be under their authority.”

It wasn’t immediately clear how the U.S. attorney’s office would proceed and exactly when Potts would make his first court appearance. He was taken from the airport to the FBI’s Miami field office.

 

I think this case may be pre-guidelines, so the judge will have quite a bit of leeway at sentencing.  Any predictions?

Fascinating argument in the Supreme Court about the federalization of all crime

The case, Bond v. United States, raised the issue of whether the feds could charge a woman who poisoned her husband under the country's treaty power.  Bond was represented by Paul Clement and the government by U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

SCOTUSblog has a nice summary of the intense questioning on both sides:

But Verrilli seemed to be tested more rigorously in trying to persuade the Court not to start drawing lines to limit treaty power or treaty implementation, as the more conservative Justices — sometimes using sarcasm — challenged his core argument.  The conservatives were joined in their challenges by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who often is a strong defender of national government power.
But it was Breyer who seemed to irritate Verrilli the most, when the Justice discussed how open-ended the weapons treaty was — so much so that it might even reach disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong’s use of performance-enhancing drugs — and pressed Verrilli to say what limits, if any, there were on the treaty’s reach.  “Hypotheticals are just hypotheticals; they are not real cases,” Verrilli shot back.
Verrilli, though, also had to face some tart responses.  Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., said that the hypotheticals the Justices were reciting were not real cases “because you haven’t prosecuted them.”  Alito went on to test the government position by noting that, a few days ago, he and his wife had passed out “chemical weapons” to children — that is, Halloween chocolate.  He noted that “chocolate is poisonous to dogs,” and the treaty bans the use of any chemical harmful to animals as well as humans.
When Justice Breyer commented lightly that “there was chocolate all over the place,” Verrilli bluntly commented: “This is serious business.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., repeatedly questioned the Solicitor General about whether there is any constitutional limit on Congress’s power to enter treaties or implement them, and whether a treaty could give Congress the authority to claim ”national police powers.”   Verrilli answered that it would be ”unimaginable that the Senate would ratify” such a treaty.
But that answer prompted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to say: “It seems unimaginable that you did bring this prosecution (of Carol Bond).”
Justice Antonin Scalia even brought into the argument the current controversy over same-sex marriage, suggesting that the government’s argument was so sweeping that the U.S. could join in a treaty approving same-sex marriage, and requiring Congress to pass a law making that binding nationally, on all of the states.  Verrilli, Scalia suggested, was trying to “drag Congress into areas where it has never been before.”  The Solicitor General answered that the Constitution’s structure, with checks and balances, put limits on treaty-making and treaty-implementation.
Verrilli argued that there was no dispute over whether the chemical weapons treaty was valid, so the implementing law should be, too, because “there is no daylight” between what each covered.  But Justice Scalia directly disputed the point, saying the implementing law went considerably further.

All of the pundits are concluding that the Court will rule for Bond, which would be fantastic. It's time to start reigning in the federal prosecution of local crime. We'll see.

Round 1 to the IRS over Colley Billie

Yesterday, Judge Williams ordered him to sit for a deposition, saying that he could not just assert a blanket 5th Amendment right to silence. Instead, he would have to assert it question by question, document by document in response to IRS questioning.

Then the parties can come back before the court to determine whether those assertions were valid or not.

What's the over/under on how many times in the depo he asserts the 5th?  I'm putting the line at 50.

Is bond jumping a real problem?

The Miami Herald ran a big story this weekend on Medicare fraud defendants jumping bail, even including a "gallery of rogues."  The article is worth a read and the numbers at first blush seem alarming:

Gonzalez and some 30 other defendants have been captured over the last half-dozen years, with the pace of arrests beginning to pick up this year. There are still another 150 fugitives from outstanding Medicare fraud cases in South Florida, most of them Cuban-born immigrants who fled to Cuba, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and other Spanish-speaking countries to evade federal trials.

My problem with the article though is that there is no discussion about how many defendants actually appear for court after being released on bond.  In fact, the statistics kept by the Bureau of Justice show that the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants released on bond show up for all court appearances at much less cost to the taxpayer than housing them at the Federal Detention Center.

And what about the 150 Medicare defendants that are still on the run?  Well, later in the article, it is revealed that 90 of those 150 are not out on bond and do not even know that they are charged:

The FBI has maintained a list of at least 90 South Florida Medicare fraud fugitives identified by name, compiled by Special Agent Bryan Piper. The bureau, assisted by Health and Human Services-Office of Inspector General, also has a list of an additional 90 defendants who have been charged by sealed indictment, but also are suspected of having fled the region. As a result, they are unaware they are wanted in Miami, and agents don’t want to tip them off.

Finally, most fugitives get caught:

So far, about 30 fugitives have been busted. Culp said that most South Florida fugitives typically get caught while they are on the lam in foreign nations, or when they return to this country through Miami International Airport.

So I hope that the article does not dissuade judges from granting bond.  In the overwhelming number of cases, bond is appropriate, and it works.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/02/v-fullstory/3728532/fbi-tracking-down-medicare-fraud.html#storylink=cpyT

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/02/v-fullstory/3728532/fbi-tracking-down-medicare-fraud.html#storylink=cpy

Independent judges beware

It's incredible to me that more lawyers aren't upset about the attack on the independence of the judiciary.

First up is the Second Circuit deciding on its own to remove a judge (without any request from the parties) because she said that she wasn't afraid to rule against the government.  From Jeff Toobin's piece:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit just chastised Shira Scheindlin, the trial judge in the case challenging the constitutionality of the N.Y.P.D.’s stop-and-frisk policy, for speaking out about the issue while the trial was going on. In a ruling today, the appeals court said Scheindlin’s statements suggested that her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” As a result, all further proceedings in the case, in which Scheindlin found that that city residents’ rights had been violated, will be transferred to another trial judge. The appeals court, in a footnote, in particular cited Scheindlin’s statements to me in a piece for The New Yorker, as well as to the AP and the New York Law Journal. (I have some familiarity with this sort of thing. )
This is preposterous. The Second Circuit took this action on its own, without even a request from the city (the defendant in the case). Apparently, it took the view that there had been such an egregious violation of the rules of judicial conduct that the court had to act on its own—sua sponte, as the lawyers say. It also stayed Scheindlin’s rulings aimed at reforming stop-and-frisk.
Scheindlin did nothing wrong. She talked about her judicial career and her history on the bench in a way that illuminated the work that all judges do. In my experience, it’s a common complaint from judges that the public doesn’t understand their work, and doesn’t care about what they do. Scheindlin’s conduct in this case exemplified the independent tradition of the judiciary. She should be honored for it, not scolded.

Next up is the GOP blocking a nominee to the Court of Appeals in DC:

Next Republicans, who have accused the president of trying to tip the court’s ideological balance in Democrats’ favor, quickly dispensed with the nomination of Patricia Ann Millett to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A former government lawyer whose husband serves in the military, she has worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The White House chose her as a test of how far Republicans would go to derail a qualified nominee.

***

Republican objections to Ms. Millet had nothing to do with her judicial temperament or political leanings. Instead, Republicans said they wanted to refuse Mr. Obama any more appointments to the appeals court, which is widely recognized as second only to the Supreme Court in importance and often rules on politically significant matters like presidential authority and campaign finance.

“Our Democratic colleagues and the administration’s supporters have been actually pretty candid,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, who pressed his members hard to vote no. “They’ve admitted they want to control the court so it will advance the president’s agenda.”

Another confrontation — on these nominations or others — seems inevitable. Even as Republicans pledged to stop Ms. Millett, two more nominees to the appeals court were working their way through the Senate confirmation pipeline. Robert L. Wilkins, a Federal District Court judge, cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday by a 10-8 party-line vote. Cornelia T. L. Pillard, a Georgetown law professor, was already approved by the committee and is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor.

The court is split evenly with four Republican and four Democratic appointees among the judges who regularly hear cases. Among the judges who are semiretired, five are seen as conservative, one as liberal.

There are still three vacancies that Mr. Obama is trying to fill. Republicans are pushing a bill that would eliminate those seats permanently because they argue the court has a light caseload.

That has prompted Democrats to accuse Republicans of trying to change the rules simply because they do not like the president who is picking judges.

“The judiciary is too important to play partisan games with,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. “And that’s exactly what’s going on here.”