Are criminal trials fair?

Judge Kozinski says no way in this really interesting read from the Georgetown Annual Review of Criminal Procedure.  His main points, as summarized by Business Insider:

1. Eyewitnesses are highly reliable

Eyewitnesses are highly unreliable, especially when the witness and perpetrator are of different races, or when witnesses are asked to recall a situation in which they were under the stress of violent crime or catastrophe, Kozinski writes. Mistaken eyewitness testimony was a factor in one-third of all wrongful conviction cases, according to his article.
Jed Rakoff, another well-known federal judge, made the same point in a Washington Post op-ed this year.

2. Fingerprint evidence is foolproof

Kozinski says prints left in the field are often smudged and incomplete — making them difficult to identify. He adds that when tested by more rigorous scientific methods, fingerprint examiners have a significant error rate.
The National Academies of Sciences has also said the work of fingerprint examiners can be flawed. 

3. Other types of forensic evidence are scientifically proven and therefore infallible

Aside from DNA evidence, Kozinski says what is true about fingerprint evidence is doubly true about bloodstain-pattern identification, foot- and tire-print identification, and ballistics.
"Some fields of forensic expertise are built on nothing but guesswork and false common sense," Kozinski writes. 
Recently, the Justice Department exposed major problems with microscopic hair testing in criminal cases. 

4. DNA evidence is infallible

Kozinski says the integrity of DNA evidence is often compromised during the collection, preservation, and testing process, and that DNA examiners are not always competent and honest.
As Mother Jones noted in April, "Real-life crime labs are a total mess."

5. Human memories are reliable

Kozinski, citing a study by cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, believes the mind not only distorts and embellishes memories, but that external factors affect how memories are recalled and described. 
In an interview with Slate, Loftus acknowledged that we're all capable of fabricating memories. 
"We all have memories that are malleable and susceptible to being contaminated or supplemented in some way," Loftus told Slate. 

6. Confessions are infallible because innocent people never confess

Kozinski has found that innocent people confess surprisingly often, due to a variety of factors including interrogation tactics, Stockholm syndrome, emotional or financial exhaustion, family considerations, and general feeble-mindedness. 
As The New Yorker has reported, police can also produce false confessions by using a certain interrogation technique. 

7. Juries follow instructions

Kozinski claims courts know very little of what juries do when they decide cases. Courts have no way of knowing whether juries follow instructions or even whether they understand them, according to Kozinski. 
"We have no convincing reason to believe that jury instructions in fact constrain jury behavior in all or even most cases," Kozinski writes.

8. Prosecutors play fair

Kozinski believes prosecutors often fail to turn over evidence that could be favorable to the defense, known as exculpatory evidence. In a case called Brady v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors have to turn over that evidence. But Kozinski claims there's an "epidemic" of Brady violations in America. 

9. The prosecution is at a substantial disadvantage because it must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

In reality, Kozinski writes, the defendant is often at a disadvantage because prosecutors have the chance to argue their case before the defense during a trial.
That's troubling because of psychological evidence showing that "whoever makes the first assertion about something has a large advantage over everyone who denies it later," according to Kozinski.

10. Police are objective in their investigations

Kozinski says police have the opportunity to alter or remove evidence, influence witnesses, extract confessions, and more or less lead an investigation in such a way that they can stack the deck against somebody they believe should be convicted.
"There are countless documented cases where innocent people have spent decades behind bars because the police manipulated or concealed evidence," Kozinski writes. 

11. Guilty pleas are conclusive proof of guilt

Kozinski has found that when a defendant believes an outcome is highly uncertain or stacked against them, they might cave and enter a guilty plea to a lesser charge so that they can still salvage a part of their life.
Judge Jed Rakoff has also lamented the fact that 97% of federal criminal defendants plead guilty if their cases aren't dismissed. 

12. Long sentences deter crime

America has 716 prisoners for every 100,000 people — the most of any country in the world, Kozinski notes. America also has much longer sentences than other countries for comparable crimes. Kozinski points out that a burglary charge in the US warrants an average of 16 months in prison, compared with five months in Canada and seven months in England.
"As with much else in the law, the connection between punishment and deterrence remains mysterious," Kozinski writes. "We make our decisions based on faith."

Meantime, there are a bunch of criminal trials starting this summer, which are expected to last over a month.  One just started before Judge Martinez, so if you are looking for something for your interns to do... send them over to watch a federal trial!

More on Kozinski (UPDATED -- KOZINSKI RETIRES)

UPDATE: Judge Kozinski has decided to retire, effective immediately.



ORIGINAL POST: The Washington Post had another front page article this weekend, detailing another round of Judge Kozinski allegations.  It’s not pretty.  Above the Law explains:

And that’s really been the nugget at the core of any defense of Kozinski. He was “only” joking, or that he should get a pass or a mere slap on the wrist because his behavior didn’t cross the line into the physical. But in the new WaPo article more women are coming forward with allegations that seem to cross that line and are deeply unsettling.

Take the story of Christine O.C. Miller, who is now a retired U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge. She says that in 1986 she attended a professional event with Kozinski and shared a car ride home at the end of the evening. During that ride Miller alleges Kozinski asked her to stop at a hotel and have sex. When she rejected his advance, she alleges things turned physical:

“I told him, no, I wasn’t interested and didn’t want to be involved in anything like that,” she said. Kozinski, she said, persisted.

“He said if you won’t sleep with me, I want to touch you, and then he reached over, and — this was the most antiseptic — he grabbed each of my breasts and squeezed them,” Miller said. She said she stared straight ahead, and he soon dropped her off at her home.

So now what? The Second Circuit is investigating. He’s hired Susan Estrich at Quinn Emanuel. Will he step down before the Second Circuit concludes its investigation or will he dig in?

#MeToo movement hits Judiciary

The #MeToo movement has made its way to the judiciary... Judge Alex Kozinski stands accused.  The Washington Post covers the story here:

A former clerk for Judge Alex Kozinski said the powerful and well-known jurist, who for many years served as chief judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, called her into his office several times and pulled up pornography on his computer, asking if she thought it was photoshopped or if it aroused her sexually.

Heidi Bond, who clerked for Kozinski from 2006 to 2007, said the porn was not related to any case. One set of images she remembered was of college-age students at a party where “some people were inexplicably naked while everyone else was clothed.” Another was a sort of digital flip book that allowed users to mix and match heads, torsos and legs to create an image of a naked woman.

Bond is one of six women — all former clerks or more junior staffers known as externs in the 9th Circuit — who alleged to The Washington Post in recent weeks that Kozinski, now 67 and still serving as a judge on the court, subjected them to a range of inappropriate sexual conduct or comments. She is one of two former clerks who said Kozinski asked them to view porn in his chambers.

In a statement, Kozinski said: “I have been a judge for 35 years and during that time have had over 500 employees in my chambers. I treat all of my employees as family and work very closely with most of them. I would never intentionally do anything to offend anyone and it is regrettable that a handful have been offended by something I may have said or done.”

Kozinski provided the statement after The Post called and emailed a spokesman with a detailed list of the allegations this story would include. After the story posted online, the judge told the Los Angeles Times, “I don’t remember ever showing pornographic material to my clerks” and, “If this is all they are able to dredge up after 35 years, I am not too worried.”

Unlike the politicians wrapped up in similar controversy, Kozinski has life-time tenure. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Should a federal judge....

...post porn pictures on his personal website (when he is about to start an obscenity trial)? That's the debate after Judge Alex Kozinski did so in United States v. Ira Isaacs, a trial starting this morning. According to the LA Times:

One of the highest-ranking federal judges in the United States, who is currently presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles, has maintained a publicly accessible website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, acknowledged in an interview with The Times that he had posted the materials, which included a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. Some of the material was inappropriate, he conceded, although he defended other sexually explicit content as "funny."

Other stuff found on the site:

The sexually explicit material on Kozinski's site earlier this week was extensive, including images of masturbation, public sex and contortionist sex. There was a slide show striptease featuring a transsexual, and a folder that contained a series of photos of women's crotches as seen through snug fitting clothing or underwear. There were also themes of defecation and urination, though they are not presented in a sexual context.

How did Kozinski end up doing a trial (he's the Chief Judge on the 9th Circuit):

The judge said it was strictly by chance that he wound up presiding over the Issacs trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Appeals court judges occasionally hear criminal cases when they have free time on their calendars and the Isaacs case was one of two he was given, the judge said.

The money quotes:

Kozinski said he didn't think any of the material he posted on his website would qualify as obscene."Is it prurient? I don't know what to tell you," he said. "I think it's odd and interesting. It's part of life."Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with the message: "Ain't nothin' here. Y'all best be movin' on, compadre."Only those who knew to type in the name of a subdirectory could see the content on the site, which also included some of Kozinski's essays and legal writings as well as music files and personal photos.The judge said he began saving the sexually explicit materials and other items of interest years ago."People send me stuff like this all the time," he said.He keeps the things he finds interesting or funny with the thought that he might later pass them on to friends, he said.

Great New York Times articles this weekend

The first is Adam Liptak's look at how two different jurisdictions are trying new approaches to make sure Gideon's promise is upheld:

Their proposed solutions reflect competing schools of legal thought. The approach in Washington State is a top-down exercise of federal power, pushing lawyers to make sure they meet with their clients, tell them their rights, investigate their cases and represent them zealously in plea negotiations and at trial.

The one in Comal County, Tex., is a bottom-up appeal to the marketplace. Defendants there will soon be able to use government money to choose their lawyers in much the same way that parents in some parts of the country use government vouchers to pay for grade school.

The county calls it “client choice.” Another name: Gideon vouchers.

In Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik drew on Supreme Court decisions involving school busing and prison overcrowding to impose a federal monitor on two Washington cities that had, he found, failed to provide meaningful representation to poor criminal defendants.

Judge Lasnik, of the Federal District Court in Seattle, found that the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington had effectively instituted a “meet and plead” system in which lawyers handling 500 cases at a time would “often meet their clients for the first time in the courtroom, sometimes with a plea offer already in hand.”

“The system is broken to such an extent,” he wrote, “that confidential attorney-client communications are rare, the individual defendant is not represented in any meaningful way, and actual innocence could conceivably go unnoticed and unchampioned.”

The second is an editorial about how bad prosecutorial misconduct has become and urging something to be done about it:

Yet far too often, state and federal prosecutors fail to fulfill that constitutional duty, and far too rarely do courts hold them accountable. Last month, Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued the most stinging indictment of this systemic failure in recent memory. “There is an epidemic of Brady violations abroad in the land,” Judge Kozinski wrote in dissent from a ruling against a man who argued that prosecutors had withheld crucial evidence in his case. “Only judges can put a stop to it.”       

***

 Judge Kozinski was right to castigate the majority for letting the prosecution refuse to turn over evidence “so long as it’s possible the defendant would’ve been convicted anyway,” as the judge wrote. This creates a “serious moral hazard,” he added, particularly since prosecutors are virtually never punished for misconduct. According to the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, multiple studies over the past 50 years show that courts punished prosecutorial misconduct in less than 2 percent of cases where it occurred. And that rarely amounted to more than a slap on the wrist, such as making the prosecutor pay for the cost of the disciplinary hearing.       

Brady violations are, by their nature, hard to detect, but Judge Kozinski had no trouble coming up with more than two dozen examples from federal and state courts just in the last few years, and those are surely the tip of the iceberg. According to the National Registry of Exonerations, 43 percent of wrongful convictions are the result of official misconduct.

The Brady problem is in many ways structural. Prosecutors have the task of deciding when a piece of evidence would be helpful to the defense. But since it is their job to believe in the defendant’s guilt, they have little incentive to turn over, say, a single piece of exculpatory evidence when they are sitting on what they see as a mountain of evidence proving guilt. The lack of professional consequences for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence only makes the breach of duty more likely. As Judge Kozinski wrote, “Some prosecutors don’t care about Brady because courts don’t make them care.”

Courts should heed Judge Kozinski’s call, but it will take more than judges to fix the problem. Prosecutors’ offices should adopt a standard “open file” policy, which would involve turning over all exculpatory evidence as a rule, thus reducing the potential for error.

Fighting prosecutorial misconduct is not only about protecting the innocent. It is, as Judge Kozinski wrote, about preserving “the public’s trust in our justice system,” and the foundation of the rule of law.

I have been calling for open file reform for a long time and have never heard a good response about why we shouldn't have open files from the government.  If any current prosecutor would like to debate this issue, I will set it up with one of the local organizations.

Judge Kozinski says we need cameras in the courtroom

And I wholeheartedly agree. From the Above the Law post on his comments:

Kozinski started his talk by going over some of the arguments he has made before [PDF] in support of cameras (e.g., studies show cameras don’t affect the proceedings, quoting his “old boss” Warren Burger — “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”).
It wouldn’t be like the O.J. trial, which decidedly set the cameras-in-the-courtroom movement back. Kozinski advocates stationary cameras that would not zoom in, zoom out, or otherwise overly dramatize the courtroom events. Kozinski acknowledged that if you were to choose between a O.J. media circus or reports from informed journalists like Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse, one might be happy to live without cameras.
But that’s not usually the choice one has. Kozinski pointed to the “long, slow decline of the newspaper industry” and the “rise of a much more diffuse style of coverage” as a major reason why cameras should be brought into courtrooms. Increasingly, the public is relying on “pseudo-journalists” (aka bloggers) for their instantaneous legal news.
“On the Internet, the loudest voice gets the most attention,” said Kozinski, who said that tends to lead to a distortion of the coverage of a case. He also raised the risks of relying on unknown bloggers, pointing to the case of “Dr. Flea.”

Someone explain to me why our federal courtrooms should be closed to the public.

In Defense of Kozinski

Even though the LA Times broke the Alex Kozinski story, it now runs an op-ed defending him. I agree that he should respond by saying "So what." This has been way way way overblown. Here's the op-ed in its entirety:

Judge Alex Kozinski's statements about the stash of sexually explicit images he collected and that the public (until this week) could view on his website have been varied, although not necessarily inconsistent: He thought the site was for private storage and offered no public access (although he shared some of the material on the site with friends). People have been sending him this stuff for years (implying that it just accumulates, like junk mail). He might accidentally have uploaded the photos and videos when intending to upload something else. His son did it. There's a different statement we'd like to hear from him, and no, it's not an apology, an expression of regret or even an explanation. It's this: "So what?"Not everyone may like it, but pornography is freely available on the Internet, whether it be from a commercial site dedicated to adults-only material or from the personal site of the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Any adult has, and ought to have, the right to view those sites and to download those photos and videos -- subject, of course, to the strictures of copyright law. People who don't want to see such images can, and should, avoid them. Scolds who argue that judges should uphold a higher standard of decorumthan the common citizen and should somehow be prevented from engaging in such private activity as gathering subjectively amusing or even appalling smut should recall that the 1st Amendment is not limited to high-minded endeavors. The controversy about the site, to which Kozinski blocked public access after a story by Times reporter Scott Glover, would be less engrossing were the judge not so highhanded when holding forth on judicial propriety or taking apart a legal argument. The story might have a higher profile on TV and radio if he were a supposedly typical 9th Circuit liberal, rather than one of the nation's most brilliant conservative legal scholars. But it makes no difference whether the person with the porn site is left or right, smart or dull, a judge or anybody else. It is also true that judges are charged with administering justice and instilling public confidence in the law. Under the circumstances, it makes sense for Kozinski to recuse himself from the obscenity trial he was assigned to hear -- not because there is any readily apparent conflict but because the website controversy has become a distraction and will undermine public trust in the verdict.

Alex Kozinski and Porn

We've posted about the whole dust-up with Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski and his personal website featuring sexually explicit photos and videos.

Well, the Third Circuit's judicial council, tasked with investigating the case, wrote a 41 page opinion admonishing Kozinski, but clearing him of any wrongdoing. It's just about the holiday weekend, so I haven't slogged through the whole opinion yet. But here's the bottom line:

We find that the Judge's possession of sexually explicit offensive material combined with his carelessness in failing to safeguard his sphere of privacy was judicially imprudent. Moreover, once the Judge became aware in 2007 that offensive material could be accessed by members of the public, his inattention to the need for prompt corrective action amounted to a disregard of a serious risk of public embarrassment. We join with the Special Committee in admonishing the Judge that his conduct exhibiting poor judgment with respect to this material created a public controversy that can reasonably be seen as having resulted in embarrassment to the institution of the federal judiciary. We determine that the Judge's acknowledgment of responsibility together with other corrective action, his apology, and our admonishment, combined with the public dissemination of this opinion, properly conclude this proceeding.
***
The Judge explained and admitted his error; apologized for it, recognizing its impact on the judiciary; and committed to changing his conduct to avoid any recurrence of the error. The offending material has been removed and will be destroyed. The Judge’s acknowledgment of responsibility combined with the corrective actions he has already completed or has committed to pursue and his apology, along with our admonishment, made public in this opinion, properly “remed[y] the problems raised by the complaint.” Rule 11(d)(2). Accordingly, this proceeding is properly concluded. We find that “all of the purposes of the judicial misconduct provisions are fully served” by this result.

In my opinion, this has been a huge waste of time. Kozinski issued the following statement to the WSJ Law Blog:

I asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to thoroughly review this matter, and I am pleased that today’s unanimous decision reaffirms what I have said all along about my private files: They were kept on a private server and were not intended to be shared publicly. Our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has much important work to do, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to accomplish our goals.

Anyway, I hope you all have a wonderful Fourth.

Update on Kozinski

Above the Law has all the details here, including that Judge Alex Kozinski has suspended the trial for 48 hours to figure out what to do, and an email from Kozinski himself:

David [Lat]: I can't comment on the trial.
As for the other matter, the server was maintained by my son, Yale, for the entire family. Pictures, documents, music, audio and other items of personal and family interest are stored there so various family members can reach them from wherever they happen to be. Everyone in the family stores stuff there, and I had no idea what some of the stuff is or was -- I was surprised that it was there. I assumed I must have put it there by accident, but when the story broke, Yale called and said he's pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it. I had no idea, but that sounds right, because I sure don't remember putting some of that stuff there.
I consider the server a private storage device, not meant for public access. I'd have been more careful about its contents if I had known that others could access it.

Here's the latest from the LA Times.

UPDATE -- There are a number of sites that have collected the images from Kozinski's website. See here, for example. Ann Althouse discusses those images and the controversy at this link.

Innocent people pleading guilty

It's one of the criminal justice system's dirty little secrets -- innocent people plead guilty because the risk if you lose at trial is too high. The Wall Street Journal covers this phenomenon here:

A surprise twist in the criminal case against Broadcom Corp. co-founder Henry Samueli again raises questions about plea bargains, one of the most important and controversial aspects of the justice system.

In a Santa Ana, Calif., court last week, federal Judge Cormac Carney dismissed the criminal complaint charging Mr. Samueli with lying to the Securities and Exchange Commission in its investigation of whether Broadcom misstated its earnings by improperly accounting for executive stock options. Judge Carney's dismissal came even though Mr. Samueli had stood before him in 2008 and pleaded guilty to that very crime.

Mr. Samueli did what lawyers and legal scholars fear a disturbing number of other people have done: pleaded guilty to a crime they didn't commit or at least believed they didn't commit. These defendants often end up choosing that route because they feel trapped in a corner, or fear getting stuck with a long prison sentence if they go to trial and lose.

The evolution of the criminal-justice system in recent decades has put many defendants "under all but impossible pressure to plead guilty, even if they're not," said Yale law Prof. John Langbein, a critic of the plea-bargain system.

A daughter of a defendant who recently pled guilty in this district says that her dad was innocent but couldn't risk a life sentence when there was a 2-year offer on the table:

But she wants to be pragmatic. Should her father risk spending the rest of his life in prison in an attempt to clear his name? She doesn't think so. Even before a plea bargain was offered, she said her father should consider one if it were offered. "It is really (awful), admitting to something you didn't do," she said. "He doesn't deserve any of this."

David Gerger out of Houston summed up best:

“When the government can increase your sentence tenfold for going to trial, then very few innocent people will have the courage to take that risk,” Gerger said. “They will just plead guilty, and that's wrong.”

There's a lot we can do to fix this, and much of it already has been discussed (even by yours truly -- I testified about this problem before the Sentencing Commission a few months back). For starters, juries -- not probation officers -- should recommend sentences to the Court.

And perhaps our court system should be more open to the public, like the state system is. One move in the right direction -- the 9th Circuit has started a pilot program where non-jury civil trials can be televised.

Video cameras, long banned from most federal courtrooms, could be used in civil trials throughout the West under a new initiative in the federal judiciary’s Ninth Circuit. One of the first cases to be televised could be next month’s hearing over a challenge to California’s same-sex marriage ban.

The move was announced Thursday by Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Kozinski called the move an “experiment” that “is designed to help us find the right balance between the public’s right to access to the courts and the parties’ right to a fair and dignified proceeding.”


***
But as Judge Kozinski said in an interview, “a lot has happened since then.” He cited advances in technology, the rise of Internet video transmission and greater experience of successful use of video in state courts and at the federal appeals level. “We thought it was time to take another look,” he said.

Judge Kozinski emphasized that the new initiative was still an experiment, and that it would be dropped “if it in any way impairs the fair administration of justice.” But he also noted that he did not expect to see problems.

“It’s a little bit of an uphill battle” to get courts to adopt technology, he said, adding: “We all have to be much more tech savvy than we really ever were, or particularly wanted to be. It’s just the nature of life in the 21st century.”

So, we have a lot to discuss in the comments -- are innocent defendants pleading guilty? Should we have cameras in the courtroom?

UPDATE -- check out this law.com article about the attorney who was recently acquitted. Apparently the judge isn't too happy with the sweetheart deals given to the snitches:

A federal judge in Columbus, Ga., has slammed federal prosecutors for making "sweetheart plea deals" with drug dealers to further their "relentless pursuit" of a criminal defense attorney whose trial ended last month when a jury acquitted him of drug conspiracy, attempted bribery and money laundering charges.
U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land issued his harsh criticism of the U.S. Attorneys' Offices for the Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia in an unusual 19-page order explaining why he more than doubled the recommended prison sentence of a federal witness who testified against Columbus lawyer J. Mark Shelnutt.
Land suggested that the judgment of the U.S. Attorney's Middle District office in Macon, Ga., which oversees federal prosecutions in Columbus, "may have become clouded by its zeal to bring down a prominent defense attorney."
"The Court became concerned that the focus of the U.S. attorney's office was on getting a high-profile lawyer and negotiating sweetheart plea deals with the actual drug dealers to accomplish that," Land wrote.

Judge Kozinski champions right to privacy in computers

The Fourth Amendment is not dead... at least in the Ninth Circuit. Judge Alex Kozinksi,* writing for an en banc Ninth Circuit, ruled that many additional safeguards must be put in place before a computer search can go forward. See United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing. Here's the summary of the holding by Kozinski:

When the government wishes to obtain a warrant to examine a computer hard drive or electronic storage medium in searching for certain incriminating files, or when a search for evidence could result in the seizure of a computer, see, e.g., United States v. Giberson, 527 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2008), magistrate judges must be vigilant in observing the guidance we have set out throughout our opinion, which can be summed up as follows:

1. Magistrates should insist that the government waive reliance upon the plain view doctrine in digital evidence cases. See p. 11876 supra.

2. Segregation and redaction must be either done by specialized personnel or an independent third party. See pp. 11880-81 supra. If the segregation is to be done by government computer personnel, it must agree in the warrant application that the computer personnel will not disclose to the investigators any information other than that which is the target of the warrant.

3. Warrants and subpoenas must disclose the actual risks of destruction of information as well as prior efforts to seize that information in other judicial fora. See pp. 11877-78, 11886-87 supra.

4. The government’s search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which it has probable cause, and only that information may be examined by the case agents. See pp. 11878, 11880-81 supra.

5. The government must destroy or, if the recipient may lawfully possess it, return non-responsive data, keeping the issuing magistrate informed about when it has done so and what it has kept. See p. 11881-82 supra.

My former law-school classmate, Professor Orin Kerr, has been railing on the decision over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Professor Kerr calls the opinion "breathtaking"** and says that it is light on citations to authority. He goes so far as to say: "This is the most free-wheeling, 'look ma no hands' legal decision I've read in a long time."

I think Kerr has got it all wrong here and that the en banc 9th Circuit has got it right. Computer searches are inherently different than any other type of search. And by the very nature of the search, a search warrant for any type of digital information -- no matter how discreet -- will lead to a search of the entire computer. Nowadays, there is nothing more private than a computer, not even your home. The old 4th Amendment analysis plainly hasn't been working with searching computers. And finally, one court had the courage to say so.

I know this isn't Scalia-Dershowitz, but I challenge my old friend Orin to a debate on whether this case was correctly decided. We can do it in blog posts or email or whatever. I hope he accepts. My first question to the good professor is whether he would agree that computer searches are inherently different than any other kind of search.

*Isn't it interesting that Kozinski wrote this opinion. Remember that he's the guy who had the contents of his computer publicly disclosed.

**Interestingly, the same word was used to describe the government's position: "Judge Thomas, too, in his panel dissent, expressed frustration withthe government’s conduct and position, calling it a 'breath-taking expansion of the ‘plain view’ doctrine, which clearly has no application to intermingled private electronic data.' Comprehensive Drug Testing, 513 F.3d at 1117."

Wow---prosecutorial misconduct leads to reversal of death penalty conviction

The Ninth Circuit reversed a death row conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct.  The opinion, by Judge Kozinski, is here.  The Trial Insider blog summarizes the case this way:

Kozinski wrote, “This is a disturbing case. There’s no physical evidence linking Debra Milke to the crime, and she has maintained her innocence since the day she was arrested.”
The only evidence linking her to the murder of her son by two men she asked to take him to see Santa Claus in 1990 was the word of Detective Armando Saldate, Jr., “a police officer with a long history of misconduct that includes lying under oath as well as accepting sexual favors in exchange for leniency and lying about it.”
Young Christopher had asked his mother to let him see Santa Claus at the mall and she agreed to let him go with her roommate James Styers. Styers picked up a friend, Roger Scott, and instead of the mall, drove the boy to a ravine outside town where they shot him in the head. They drove to the mall and reported Christopher missing. The motive was allegedly a plot by Styers and Scott to collect social security benefits and insurance as a result of the boy’s death, according to the court.
Police began to suspect the two men almost immediately. Saldate was one of the officers questioning the two men. Scott led the officers to Christopher’s body. Scott purportedly said at some point that Milke was involved, but neither man would testify against her and the statement was excluded as hearsay at her trial.
But Saldate seized on the statement and went to question Milke. She was taken to a small room at Pinal County jail where Saldate abruptly told the 25-year-old woman her son was dead. He said he didn’t “buy” her sobbing because she had no tears, according to the opinion.
He continued to question her, without tape recording the conversation as instructed. Saldate claims Milke opened up to him within 30 minutes, waived her Miranda rights, and confessed to a murder conspiracy with the two men.
She has consistently denied involvement in the murder and said she had asked for a lawyer but was ignored. Saldate even testified he destroyed his interview notes after writing his official report. In the end, the jury believed Saldate and convicted Milke. What jurors didn’t know was Saldate’s “long history of lying under oath and other misconduct,” Kozinski said. “The state knew about this misconduct but didn’t disclose it,” despite the requirements of long-standing legal precedents. (Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. U.S.)

And here's Thomson Reuters:

The detective testified that Milke told him she had contemplated having an abortion while pregnant with Christopher and had complained to Styers about her son. The detective said she confessed to conspiring to the murder, although she protested her innocence and denied the claim.
In its ruling, the court said the state failed to disclose Saldate's substantial misconduct record, which included four court cases where judges tossed out confessions or indictments because he lied under oath.
The court said that, without the detective's testimony, the prosecution had no case against her, as there was no physical evidence linking her to the crime and neither of her supposed co-conspirators - Styers and Scott - would testify against her.
"The panel held that the state remained unconstitutionally silent instead of disclosing information about Det. Saldate's history of misconduct and accompanying court orders and disciplinary action," the ruling said.
"Some of the misconduct wasn't disclosed until the case came to federal court and, even today, some evidence relevant to Saldate's credibility hasn't been produced, perhaps because it's been destroyed."
The appeals court ordered the state to provide Milke's counsel with the detective's personnel records. The district court was then ordered to release Milke, who is one of three women listed on Arizona's death row, unless the state should decide to retry her.

Judge Alex Kozinski speaks... (UPDATED)

... at UM Law in the Robert B. Cole Lecture Series.  And it was very entertaining.

Using a huge screen powerpoint presentation (see the picture below with the screen shot from Cheers), Kozinski spoke about IP law, persuasive lawyering, and when it's best not to file suit.  Examples included: the old Nintendo system and Mario Bros 3; Johnny Mathis's song When Sunny Gets Blue v. Rick Dees' song When Sunny Sniffs Glue; Barbie v. Bratz; the I'm a Barbie Girl song; Vanna White; Platoon; Cheers; Gay Olympic games; New Kids on the Block; and the Streisand effect... just to name a few.

Here are a few pictures from the extremely engaging talk, including yours truly with the good judge and Professor Ricardo Bascuas. 

And just in case you wanted to see the I'm A Barbie Girl video:




UPDATE -- Judge Kozinski issued this en banc opinion yesterday (while he was in Miami) concerning the computer fraud and abuse act, holding that the act did not criminalize violating a computer use policy:

Computers have become an indispensable part of our daily lives. We use them for work; we use them for play. Some- times we use them for play at work. Many employers have adopted policies prohibiting the use of work computers for nonbusiness purposes. Does an employee who violates such a policy commit a federal crime? How about someone who violates the terms of service of a social networking website? This depends on how broadly we read the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

I'm back

Thanks to my guest bloggers -- SFL, Rumpole, and Rick B.

Now back to work.... I hope everyone enjoys the last good week of traffic because school starts in one week and then US1 and I-95 turn back into parking lots.

A couple of quick hits to start your week:

1. Blago jury still out.

2. Justice Sotomayor jokingly compares herself to J.Lo.

3. Blogger convicted after three tries for threatening comments about federal judges.

4. Justice Ginsburg wants the good ol' days back in the Senate.

5. Justice Scalia OK after tripping.

6. Neal Katyal likely to become 10th Justice.

7. A must read dissent by Judge Kozinski on GPS tracking and the 4th Amendment. The intro:

Having previously decimated the protections the Fourth
Amendment accords to the home itself, United States v.
Lemus, 596 F.3d 512 (9th Cir. 2010) (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting
from the denial of rehearing en banc); United States v.
Black, 482 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2007) (Kozinski, J., dissenting
from the denial of rehearing en banc), our court now proceeds
to dismantle the zone of privacy we enjoy in the home’s curtilage
and in public. The needs of law enforcement, to which
my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly
making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have
come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.

And the conclusion:

I don’t think that most people in the United States would
agree with the panel that someone who leaves his car parked
in his driveway outside the door of his home invites people
to crawl under it and attach a device that will track the vehicle’s
every movement and transmit that information to total
strangers. There is something creepy and un-American about
such clandestine and underhanded behavior. To those of us
who have lived under a totalitarian regime, there is an eerie
feeling of déjà vu. This case, if any, deserves the comprehensive,
mature and diverse consideration that an en banc panel
can provide. We are taking a giant leap into the unknown, and
the consequences for ourselves and our children may be dire
and irreversible. Some day, soon, we may wake up and find
we’re living in Oceania.

Stolen Valor Act debated in High Court today

Hope everyone had a nice long weekend....

Today the Supreme Court is debating a fascinating case about how far the federal criminal code can be expanded.  The Stolen Valor Act makes to falsely claim to have been awarded military honors and decorations.  But are such lies covered by the First Amendment?  From the Washington Post:

The case has generated huge interest and divided First Amendment advocates, including the media, and veterans groups, who see the act as a necessary weapon to discourage what appears to a boomlet of self-aggrandizers.
According to a brief filed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and two dozen veterans groups: “Pretenders have included a U.S. Attorney, member of Congress, ambassador, judge, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and bestselling author, manager of a Major League Baseball team, Navy captain, police chief, top executive at a world-famous research laboratory, director of state veterans programs, university administrator, pastor, candidate for countywide office, mayor, physician, and more than one police officer.”
“This case is about theft, not lying in general,” wrote D.C. lawyer Michael T. Morley in the brief. “Alvarez, and others like him, have misappropriated for their own benefit an unearned share of the two centuries’ worth of goodwill and prestige associated with American military awards.”
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco agreed with Alvarez that the law did not meet the high standard courts must apply to attempts to restrict speech.
“Saints may always tell the truth, but for mortals living means lying,” Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in response to the government’s request that the decision be reconsidered.
“Without the robust protections of the First Amendment, the white lies, exaggerations and deceptions that are an integral part of human intercourse would become targets of censorship” and set up the government as “truth police” with the power to punish.
Other judges have seen it differently. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in a separate Stolen Valor case, upheld the law’s constitutionality.
“As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech,” U.S. Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich wrote for another divided panel.

 Gotta love Kozinski....

Tony Mauro has a nice summary of what to look out for in today's argument here.  I will post the argument when it goes online.  Should be interesting.

Two words best describe the majority opinion: “wrong” and “dangerous.” UPDATED with hilarious Kozinski video

That's how Chief Judge Kozinski starts his dissent in United States v. I.E.V.  You gotta love his writing style:

My colleagues ignore these intractable realities and focus
instead on irrelevancies. They mention twice (so they must
think it’s pretty important) that the dog didn’t alert to
weapons. Maj. Op. 10, 16-17 n.6. But the dog did alert to
possible illegal activities that are often accompanied by
firearms. The majority also mentions twice (ditto) that the
dog alerted to possible drugs or humans, as if this matters.
Id. at 10, 18 n.6. It doesn’t: If the dog alerts to something
that might be drugs or humans, that something could be
drugs.
The majority mentions three times (ditto!) that I.E.V. and
his brother were teenagers, as if that matters. Maj. Op. 8, 10,
16. Teenagers are perfectly capable of carrying drugs and
killing people with guns. Teen kills cop, then self, Chicago
Tribune (June 20, 2007), available at
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-06-20/news/07062
00859_1_kills-teen-cop.
The majority mentions four times (DITTO!!!) that San
Ramon didn’t testify, Maj. Op. 3, 5, 19, 20, and argues that
we may not “assum[e] that [he] ‘might legitimately have been
looking for’ a weapon,” id. at 20 (quoting Miles, 247 F.3d at
1015). ...
***

From the conclusion:

It’s easy enough, sitting safely in our chambers, protected
by U.S. Marshals with guns and dogs, surrounded by concrete
barriers and security cameras, to say that officers in the field
had no cause to fear for their safety. But if we’d been there
when I.E.V. and his brother pulled up in their car, heard the
police dog alert and seen one of the suspects fidget like he
was reaching for a weapon, I’d have dived for cover into the
nearest ditch, and my guess is I wouldn’t have been the first
one there.

Update:  One of the funniest videos I've seen (h/t AP):



2.  John Pacenti covers the upcoming trial before Judge Scola involving the issue of depos in Pakistan.  They don't have the Federal Public Defender's resources (because their client has been dismissed out of the case), so preparing has been tough:

In interviews with the Daily Business Review, the attorneys for the father-and-son imams talked about the undertaking and gave a preview of what they plan to argue in front of a jury next month.
It's a defense that will partly center on free speech, a government informant who infiltrated the clerics' mosques and whether the defendants knew money sent to Pakistan was earmarked for the Taliban.
"This is like putting on a wedding for a thousand people with a staff of two," said Joseph Rosenbaum, the Miami attorney for Izhar Khan. "This is a tremendous undertaking."
"Surprisingly, it seems no one has had to do live encrypted video depositions from Pakistan to Miami before. Go figure," said Khurrum Wahid, a partner at Wahid Vizcaino in Pompano Beach. He represents the father.

Trains, Planes, and Automobiles

Or boats... Here's how Chief Judge Kozinski starts out an opinion in NEW HAMPSHIRE INS. v. C’EST MOI, INC.:

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider the doctrine that’s on everyone’s lips: uberrimae fidei.

I had no idea either. According to Black's law, the Latin phrase means: The most abundant good faith; absolute and perfect candor or openness and honesty. It's a common phrase for you maritime lawyers.

As for planes, here's John Pacenti's article about seizures related to aircraft.

I know, I know -- this isn't the most gripping post I've ever done. But help me readers -- are there any great trials out there to blog about?

In the meantime, you can check out the other local blogs for fun posts about our state legislature at work allowing exemptions for plumbers re the low underwear law (via Rumpole) or fighting over fees (via South Florida Lawyers). And for my AUSA friends, here's a piece about shackling PDs (don't get too excited).

How many innocent people are in federal prison?

Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski told 60 Minutes that about 1% or over 20,000 innocent people are in federal prison.  "That's a lot of people!" The number is almost definitely higher and yet many federal judges aren't doing as much as Kozinski to check the executive.  And boy do we need a strong judiciary right now with AG Sessions.

We should have our U.S. Attorney nominee this week.  It will be interesting to see if that person is willing to stand up to Trump/Sessions or whether they will go back to the old ways where there is limited discovery, no exhibit lists, etc. etc.

It appears that in the Ft. Lauderdale shooting case that the prosecution is handing over all of the evidence.  From Paula McMahon:

 Prosecutors handling the case against a man accused of fatally shooting five people and wounding six others at Fort Lauderdale’s international airport are still turning over massive amounts of evidence to the defense, they said in court on Friday.
In the coming weeks, they plan to hand over electronic evidence from computers and phones used by Esteban Santiago before the Jan. 6 mass shooting.
Both sides said they are still interviewing numerous potential witnesses who may have information about the shooting and Santiago’s state of mind.
The defense team, from the Federal Public Defender’s office, said Santiago, 27, is continuing to take medication for schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. They said his condition appears to have stabilized and he remains legally competent to stand trial.

It also appears that Haitian coup leader Guy Philippe will plead guilty today.

The Onion covers Kozinski

Here.

I haven't covered all the latest twists and turns in the Kozinski case (if you want all of that, see AboveTheLaw).

From the Onion:

"That's nothing. Have you ever seen the stuff on Justice Scalia's website?"

And here's The Daily Pulp's coverage of the Carlos Miller trial.

Barry Bonds' conviction in trouble?

That's what all of the court observers are saying after yesterday's en banc argument (watch here*).  Here's one example, by Pamela MacLean:

The government may have struck out with the majority of an 11-judge panel of the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday in former Giants slugger Barry Bonds’ challenge to his obstruction of justice conviction in an investigation of steroids use.
“I find your reading of the statute absolutely alarming,” Judge William Fletcher to the government’s lawyer Mary Jean Chan.  And it got worse from there.
A three judge panel of the appeals court upheld Bonds conviction for obstruction of justice in September 2013 for his evasive testimony to a grand jury investigating illegal distribution of steroids by the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative (BALCO.)
The three-judge appeals panel held that his answers were “evasive, misleading and capable of influencing the grand jury to minimize” the role of Bonds’ trainer, Greg Anderson, suspected of distributing performance enhancing drugs.
Bonds’ attorney Dennis Riordan opened by saying any decision will garner public attention because of Bonds’ celebrity and controversial status.  But that’s not what’s important, what is important, he said, “This is the first time the government has asked to convict  a defendant for comments to a grand jury that were non-responsive, to convict for obstruction of justice because he wandered off topic.”
While Riordan faced tough questioning, most of the fire was reserved for the government.
Fletcher asked what happens in civil litigation if lawyers respond to interrogatories and they give truthful but evasive answers.  “Are they guilty of a crime?” he asked.
“Yes,” responded Chan.
“Well that is a common practice in civil litigation and you may have criminalized half the bar.  “Half the bar may be in serious trouble,” he said.
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski accused the government of engaging in some evasive conduct in the superseding indictment by not making clear the Bonds statements that were allegedly evasive.
Bonds’ rambling answers to the grand jury  about being a “celebrity child” in response to a question whether he received any steroids from  Anderson could be the basis of a conviction, the panel held.  The panel found that even truthful answers could be the basis of conviction if they were so evasive.
Bonds was sentenced in 2011 to spend 30 days in his Beverly Hills mansion and perform 250 hours of community service for his conviction to use of dodgy answers to federal questions.  Jurors could not agree on a perjury charge against Bonds.
Judge Susan Graber said, “Speaking for myself, I don’t see how there is sufficient evidence [of obstruction] when the question was asked and answered repeatedly.”
Kozinski asked, “Can you cure a misleading answer?”
“Not if the intent was to mislead at the time,” Chan said.
“But wasn’t it cured in this case?” asked JudgeJacqueline Nguyen?

*How cool (and informative) is it that you can watch the argument right after it happens.  When will the 11th do this?


Meantime, last night the Broward Federal Bar Association had its big gala.  Lots of federal judges turned out, including federal judge hopefuls.