That was Anthony Natale's theme in opening for Jose Padilla.
"Political crises can cause parts of our government to overreach. This is one of those times," he said. Natale said Padilla wanted to become an imam — an Islamic religious leader — and asked him to stand for the jury to see. "He's a young man who has been wrongly accused," Natale said.
Again, Curt Anderson got on the board first with this coverage. I'm sure there will be a lot more.....
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Monday, May 14, 2007
"Jose Padilla was an al-Qaida terrorist trainee providing the ultimate form of material support - himself,"
That was Brian Frazier in opening statement. Frazier continued: "Padilla was serious, he was focused, he was secretive. Padilla had cut himself off from most things in his life that did not concern his radical view of the Islamic religion."
Curt Anderson, for the AP, has the first report from today's proceedings...
Padilla's lawyers haven't countered yet. More to follow.
Curt Anderson, for the AP, has the first report from today's proceedings...
Padilla's lawyers haven't countered yet. More to follow.
Congrats to our new Magistrate
A (reliable) little birdie told me that Robin Rosenbaum is our new Ft. Lauderdale Magistrate Judge. Congratulations!
Computer issues
My computer at the office is down as is my server.
This will teach me to go away for the weekend (even if it was for a conference!).
I did manage to get up two posts this morning before everything crashed. Now I'm on the computer of someone down the hall who hasn't made it in to work yet. You know who you are...
In any event, there is a bunch of weekend stuff to catch up on, but it will have to wait until the afternoon. Plus, I'm going to try and make it over to see some openings in Padilla. Will check in later.
This will teach me to go away for the weekend (even if it was for a conference!).
I did manage to get up two posts this morning before everything crashed. Now I'm on the computer of someone down the hall who hasn't made it in to work yet. You know who you are...
In any event, there is a bunch of weekend stuff to catch up on, but it will have to wait until the afternoon. Plus, I'm going to try and make it over to see some openings in Padilla. Will check in later.
Jose Padilla opening statements
Jose Padilla opening statements are today. There is a buzz in the legal community over the case, but I wonder if the general public has the same interest. You would think everyone would be following this trial, but I get the sense that it's a case of a lot of interest to us, but only of moderate interest to everyone else...
In any event, there are a zillion articles about the start of the case. Here's one by Vanessa Blum about Judge Marcia Cooke. (And here's a brief bio) Here's our initial coverage of Judge Cooke.
Good luck to the lawyers today. I'm sure everyone has those trial jitters, especially in this case.
In any event, there are a zillion articles about the start of the case. Here's one by Vanessa Blum about Judge Marcia Cooke. (And here's a brief bio) Here's our initial coverage of Judge Cooke.
Good luck to the lawyers today. I'm sure everyone has those trial jitters, especially in this case.
My new favorite reporter...
... is Tonya Alanez from the Sun-Sentinel (whom I've never met or spoken to) because she had this to say about our blog in this article about the Broward Blog controversy:
South Florida has two other court-oriented blogs.On the Southern District of Florida Blog, Miami-based attorney David Oscar Markus strikes an even-handed, statesman-like tone and tends toward observation rather than critique. The Justice Building Blog, authored by another Miami-based attorney who posts anonymously, cloaks its jabs with humor.
COOL!
UPDATE -- The Miami Herald also did a report on the Broward Blog (by Jennifer Lebovich) and mentioned us.
South Florida has two other court-oriented blogs.On the Southern District of Florida Blog, Miami-based attorney David Oscar Markus strikes an even-handed, statesman-like tone and tends toward observation rather than critique. The Justice Building Blog, authored by another Miami-based attorney who posts anonymously, cloaks its jabs with humor.
COOL!
UPDATE -- The Miami Herald also did a report on the Broward Blog (by Jennifer Lebovich) and mentioned us.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Padilla and Wilk
What a fun time to be a trial lawyer in the Southern District of Florida. I know I sound like a broken record, but we have the best trials and cases in the country.
Jay Weaver has a great article about the jury selection in the Jose Padilla case. Rising star Dore Louis took on the Government: "Early in the process, one of Jayyousi's attorneys, Marshall Dore Louis, accused the prosecution of striking four candidates with Muslim connections and one who was Muslim herself. I believe they have shown a pattern of bias against people who know Muslims or are Muslims." John Shipley responded, "It is completely untrue. There is no pattern whatsoever."
The Government then complained that the defense was striking Hispanic jurors. At the end of the day, Judge Cooke found that neither side was using their strikes in a discriminatory fashion. Everyone in the courtroom applauded when the jury was finally seated. On to trial!
Kenneth Wilk took the stand in his own defense! "He didn't discuss AIDS dementia, a key part of his defense. He immediately admitted he fired his gun but said he thought the people in his Fort Lauderdale home, Deputy Todd Fatta and Lt. Angelo Cedeño, were intruders, not police. He also said he tried to perform first aid on Fatta, the man he is accused of murdering."
Who's call was it to testify:
Outside of court, Wilk's attorneys, Matthewman and J. Rafael Rodriguez, wouldn't comment on Wilk's desire to testify. "We're just honoring his request," Rodriguez said.When U.S. District Judge James Cohn asked Wilk if he discussed the decision with his lawyers, Wilk replied: "There's been tremendous conversation back and forth. ... And this is something I have to do and, uh, it's my decision and mine alone and I stand by it."
Jay Weaver has a great article about the jury selection in the Jose Padilla case. Rising star Dore Louis took on the Government: "Early in the process, one of Jayyousi's attorneys, Marshall Dore Louis, accused the prosecution of striking four candidates with Muslim connections and one who was Muslim herself. I believe they have shown a pattern of bias against people who know Muslims or are Muslims." John Shipley responded, "It is completely untrue. There is no pattern whatsoever."
The Government then complained that the defense was striking Hispanic jurors. At the end of the day, Judge Cooke found that neither side was using their strikes in a discriminatory fashion. Everyone in the courtroom applauded when the jury was finally seated. On to trial!
Kenneth Wilk took the stand in his own defense! "He didn't discuss AIDS dementia, a key part of his defense. He immediately admitted he fired his gun but said he thought the people in his Fort Lauderdale home, Deputy Todd Fatta and Lt. Angelo Cedeño, were intruders, not police. He also said he tried to perform first aid on Fatta, the man he is accused of murdering."
Who's call was it to testify:
Outside of court, Wilk's attorneys, Matthewman and J. Rafael Rodriguez, wouldn't comment on Wilk's desire to testify. "We're just honoring his request," Rodriguez said.When U.S. District Judge James Cohn asked Wilk if he discussed the decision with his lawyers, Wilk replied: "There's been tremendous conversation back and forth. ... And this is something I have to do and, uh, it's my decision and mine alone and I stand by it."
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Jose Padilla update
1. A jury has been selected!
2. Opening statements are to begin Monday.
3. The jury consists of five blacks, four whites and three Hispanics; seven men and five women.
4. On the panel are an executive in a software firm, a makeup artist, and the manager of several gas stations.
5. The CBS reporter was not held in contempt.
6. The judge has yet to rule on a severance motion that could impact whether Padilla is tried with the other two defendants. It was still being argued today.
AP coverage by Curt Anderson here and here.
Vanessa Blum here.
2. Opening statements are to begin Monday.
3. The jury consists of five blacks, four whites and three Hispanics; seven men and five women.
4. On the panel are an executive in a software firm, a makeup artist, and the manager of several gas stations.
5. The CBS reporter was not held in contempt.
6. The judge has yet to rule on a severance motion that could impact whether Padilla is tried with the other two defendants. It was still being argued today.
AP coverage by Curt Anderson here and here.
Vanessa Blum here.
Yahweh Ben Yahweh dies at 71
Here's the obit from the Herald:
Yahweh Ben Yahweh, the South Florida sect leader whose brand of black supremacist preachings drew his followers into a brotherhood of murder and terror in the 1980s, has died in Miami, his lawyers said.
Lawyer Ben Kuehne said Ben Yahweh, 71, died in his sleep overnight. ''Cancer is the cause,'' Kuehne said. Ben Yahweh had been ill with prostate cancer.
The self-proclaimed ''Black Messiah,'' Yahweh based his operation in the bunker-like Temple of Love in Liberty City, once telling his followers that white people were terrorists and that unbelievers were devils.
Federal prosecutors, however, branded him the most notorious criminal in South Florida. Convicted of conspiracy, he served 11 years of an 18-year federal prison sentence.
Born Hulon Mitchell Jr. in Oklahoma, the preacher and activist moved to South Florida in 1978 and changed his name to the Hebrew words for ``God, son of God.''
A charismatic leader, he founded the Nation of Yahweh, boasting thousands of followers who often dressed in white and who once won praise for rehabilitating blighted Miami neighborhoods.
According to a book on Yahweh written by former Miami Herald reporter Sydney P. Freedberg, Yahweh was the oldest child of a minister. He joined the Nation of Islam before turning up in Orlando as Brother Love and eventually finding fertile ground among the poor and black in Miami.
Yahweh, who called himself a prophet and wore a turban and flowing white robes, preached racial and religious separatism for blacks.
At the same time, he amassed a real estate and business empire worth at least $8 million. He won favor with prominent local politicians, who considered him a positive force for inner city neighborhoods. Yahweh and his followers opened grocery stores, hotels and apartment complexes.
Just a month before Yahweh's indictment in 1990, then-Mayor Xavier Suarez declared Oct. 7 as Yahweh Ben Yahweh Day.
Federal prosecutors, however, accused him of plotting 14 Miami-Dade County murders, two other attempted murders and of ordering the firebombing of a Delray Beach neighborhood in 1986 to further his religious empire.
Federal and state investigators spent millions of dollars and more than a decade tracking 20 homicides they believed were connected to the Miami-based religious sect. Yahweh's only conviction came on the conspiracy charge.
In October 2006, after Yahweh completed five years of parole, two of his lawyers, Jayne Weintraub and Steven Potolsky, went to federal court in an attempt to end his parole. They said the prostate cancer had metastasized and he was dying.
The attempt to free him from parole ultimately succeeded, Weintraub said Tuesday.
Yahweh had been living alone in Miami after his release from prison, his lawyers said, and he had kept away from his former followers.
In court papers, they wrote that Yahweh was ``greatly desirous of the simple dignity of being permitted to die a free man, not a parolee.''
Yahweh Ben Yahweh, the South Florida sect leader whose brand of black supremacist preachings drew his followers into a brotherhood of murder and terror in the 1980s, has died in Miami, his lawyers said.
Lawyer Ben Kuehne said Ben Yahweh, 71, died in his sleep overnight. ''Cancer is the cause,'' Kuehne said. Ben Yahweh had been ill with prostate cancer.
The self-proclaimed ''Black Messiah,'' Yahweh based his operation in the bunker-like Temple of Love in Liberty City, once telling his followers that white people were terrorists and that unbelievers were devils.
Federal prosecutors, however, branded him the most notorious criminal in South Florida. Convicted of conspiracy, he served 11 years of an 18-year federal prison sentence.
Born Hulon Mitchell Jr. in Oklahoma, the preacher and activist moved to South Florida in 1978 and changed his name to the Hebrew words for ``God, son of God.''
A charismatic leader, he founded the Nation of Yahweh, boasting thousands of followers who often dressed in white and who once won praise for rehabilitating blighted Miami neighborhoods.
According to a book on Yahweh written by former Miami Herald reporter Sydney P. Freedberg, Yahweh was the oldest child of a minister. He joined the Nation of Islam before turning up in Orlando as Brother Love and eventually finding fertile ground among the poor and black in Miami.
Yahweh, who called himself a prophet and wore a turban and flowing white robes, preached racial and religious separatism for blacks.
At the same time, he amassed a real estate and business empire worth at least $8 million. He won favor with prominent local politicians, who considered him a positive force for inner city neighborhoods. Yahweh and his followers opened grocery stores, hotels and apartment complexes.
Just a month before Yahweh's indictment in 1990, then-Mayor Xavier Suarez declared Oct. 7 as Yahweh Ben Yahweh Day.
Federal prosecutors, however, accused him of plotting 14 Miami-Dade County murders, two other attempted murders and of ordering the firebombing of a Delray Beach neighborhood in 1986 to further his religious empire.
Federal and state investigators spent millions of dollars and more than a decade tracking 20 homicides they believed were connected to the Miami-based religious sect. Yahweh's only conviction came on the conspiracy charge.
In October 2006, after Yahweh completed five years of parole, two of his lawyers, Jayne Weintraub and Steven Potolsky, went to federal court in an attempt to end his parole. They said the prostate cancer had metastasized and he was dying.
The attempt to free him from parole ultimately succeeded, Weintraub said Tuesday.
Yahweh had been living alone in Miami after his release from prison, his lawyers said, and he had kept away from his former followers.
In court papers, they wrote that Yahweh was ``greatly desirous of the simple dignity of being permitted to die a free man, not a parolee.''
"Witness: Tests indicate murder suspect has AIDS dementia"
Paula McMahon, who has been covering the Kenneth Wilk trial for the Sun-Sentinel, has this interesting article in today's paper re the defense witnesses in the case. From the intro:
A second medical expert says there is objective evidence that Kenneth Wilk has AIDS-related dementia and likely had the condition when he fatally shot Broward Sheriff's Deputy Todd Fatta more than 21/2 years ago.Medical testing of Wilk's brain shows damage consistent with dementia, said Dr. Jeff Gelblum, a Miami Beach and Aventura neurologist, in two days of testimony that ended Monday in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
(As an aside, who is the anonymous person who keeps emailing me these articles?)
A second medical expert says there is objective evidence that Kenneth Wilk has AIDS-related dementia and likely had the condition when he fatally shot Broward Sheriff's Deputy Todd Fatta more than 21/2 years ago.Medical testing of Wilk's brain shows damage consistent with dementia, said Dr. Jeff Gelblum, a Miami Beach and Aventura neurologist, in two days of testimony that ended Monday in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
(As an aside, who is the anonymous person who keeps emailing me these articles?)
Monday, May 07, 2007
Broward Blog controversy...
Broward judges have been taking some heat lately. Check out this article in which the Chief Judge of Broward Circuit Court, Dale Ross, blames the JAABLAW blog for the court's woes.
[Chief Judge] Ross on Friday repeatedly referred to the blog and its "undermining" effect."I am disturbed honestly and truly that there are folks that want us to fail," he said.Attorney Bill Gelin, who helped establish the Justice Advocacy Association of Broward blog, said the postings are geared toward "positive change and proactivity.""There's been a desperate need for some kind of communication medium like this," Gelin said. "Nepotism, cronyism and cynicism have set in here and we're talking about fixing the real problems."
Bill Gelin responds on the blog:
I just wanted to add to my previous statements about Judge Ross saying we are "undermining" the judiciary. I've been fielding calls and questions all day on this issue, and I've gone from bemusement to anger. The bottom line, in my mind, is that this type of judicial behavior is nothing new in Broward, and that these judges don't need my help, or this blog's help, in undermining the 17th Judiciary. They are doing a great job all by themselves.
Ouch. I think Judge Carney's letter to the Miami Herald is a much stronger argument than Ross' complaint about the blog. Here's Carney:
Re the May 3 editorial Intemperate judges tarnish judicial system: The Broward County bench is made up of 90 judges -- 58 circuit judges and 32 county judges. The editorial and recent articles unfairly lump the entire Broward bench under an umbrella based on the actions of a few judges.
This does a disservice to most of the judges who have dedicated their careers to public service. Most important, however, it does a disservice to the residents of Broward County by undermining confidence in their courts.
Judicial polls routinely show that the vast majority of Broward judges are viewed as qualified or extremely qualified to hold their positions. These ratings are independently made by the attorneys of Broward County who practice in front of them.
The problem, of course, is that in the last couple of months, we've had pot, crying, and NHI -- in high profile proceedings. Yikes...
Hat tip on the JAABLAW blog: Rumpole.
[Chief Judge] Ross on Friday repeatedly referred to the blog and its "undermining" effect."I am disturbed honestly and truly that there are folks that want us to fail," he said.Attorney Bill Gelin, who helped establish the Justice Advocacy Association of Broward blog, said the postings are geared toward "positive change and proactivity.""There's been a desperate need for some kind of communication medium like this," Gelin said. "Nepotism, cronyism and cynicism have set in here and we're talking about fixing the real problems."
Bill Gelin responds on the blog:
I just wanted to add to my previous statements about Judge Ross saying we are "undermining" the judiciary. I've been fielding calls and questions all day on this issue, and I've gone from bemusement to anger. The bottom line, in my mind, is that this type of judicial behavior is nothing new in Broward, and that these judges don't need my help, or this blog's help, in undermining the 17th Judiciary. They are doing a great job all by themselves.
Ouch. I think Judge Carney's letter to the Miami Herald is a much stronger argument than Ross' complaint about the blog. Here's Carney:
Re the May 3 editorial Intemperate judges tarnish judicial system: The Broward County bench is made up of 90 judges -- 58 circuit judges and 32 county judges. The editorial and recent articles unfairly lump the entire Broward bench under an umbrella based on the actions of a few judges.
This does a disservice to most of the judges who have dedicated their careers to public service. Most important, however, it does a disservice to the residents of Broward County by undermining confidence in their courts.
Judicial polls routinely show that the vast majority of Broward judges are viewed as qualified or extremely qualified to hold their positions. These ratings are independently made by the attorneys of Broward County who practice in front of them.
The problem, of course, is that in the last couple of months, we've had pot, crying, and NHI -- in high profile proceedings. Yikes...
Hat tip on the JAABLAW blog: Rumpole.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Weekend reading...
The Herald had a bunch of stuff this weekend:
1. "The former Monroe County attorney wound up with probation for his role in a bribery and corruption case dating back nearly a decade." Judge Highsmith sentenced James Hendrick, former Magistrate Judge Hugh Morgan's partner, to probation and said: ''An awful lot of people came forward on your behalf. Do not disappoint us.''
2. "Feds cast wide net in Pepe Diaz probe: A federal investigation into a Miami-Dade commissioner revolves around a law that has been a boon to prosecutors, but that a defense lawyer rips as a `toxic waste dump.'" That's Richard Sharpstein, our local quote master.
3. "Lesser sentences sought for two Posada associates: The U.S. attorney's office in Miami agreed to lower the prison sentences of two Cuban exiles with ties to anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles."
1. "The former Monroe County attorney wound up with probation for his role in a bribery and corruption case dating back nearly a decade." Judge Highsmith sentenced James Hendrick, former Magistrate Judge Hugh Morgan's partner, to probation and said: ''An awful lot of people came forward on your behalf. Do not disappoint us.''
2. "Feds cast wide net in Pepe Diaz probe: A federal investigation into a Miami-Dade commissioner revolves around a law that has been a boon to prosecutors, but that a defense lawyer rips as a `toxic waste dump.'" That's Richard Sharpstein, our local quote master.
3. "Lesser sentences sought for two Posada associates: The U.S. attorney's office in Miami agreed to lower the prison sentences of two Cuban exiles with ties to anti-Castro militant Luis Posada Carriles."
More Awards
Last night the Miami Chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had its annual banquet (this year's was at the JW Marriot on Brickell). Great turnout to honor Kathy Williams, Scott Fingerhut, Paul Rashkind, and Judge Joseph Farina. Each of the honorees gave incredible speeches. (I was president of FACDL-Miami this year; Barry Wax is taking over.)
It's been a very difficult couple of weeks for the criminal defense lawyer and criminal defendant in state court. No more rebuttal close for the defense, and court appointed funding for conflict cases (their equivalent to CJA lawyers) is no more. Instead, there will be an underfunded second public defender's office to handle conflicts. It's a total disaster. Most of the speakers discussed these recent events.
Federal sightings: Judge Moreno, Judge Brown, U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, and lots of federal PDs.
It's been a very difficult couple of weeks for the criminal defense lawyer and criminal defendant in state court. No more rebuttal close for the defense, and court appointed funding for conflict cases (their equivalent to CJA lawyers) is no more. Instead, there will be an underfunded second public defender's office to handle conflicts. It's a total disaster. Most of the speakers discussed these recent events.
Federal sightings: Judge Moreno, Judge Brown, U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, and lots of federal PDs.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
"Lawyer for alleged madam seen as quite a case himself"
Because this guy has South Florida ties, I post this really strange article about Montgomery Blair Sibley, the lawyer for the DC Madam. (thanks for the comment -- the link is fixed).
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Congrats to Judge Federico Moreno
He was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Greater Miami Jewish Federation. Judges Steve Leifman and Gerald Wetherington also received awards.
Lots of funny moments in the speech, but I particularly liked when he thanked his clerks and said that it was the best part of the job because he added to his family every year. Really nice...
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Wilk defense
Kenneth Wilk's turn...
The Government rested and painted a pretty awful picture of Wilk.
Now Wilk is putting on evidence that he had AIDS dementia (via Sun-Sentinel), which is why he did what he did:
An expert witness testified for the defense that Kenneth Wilk had AIDS dementia on the day he fatally shot a Broward sheriff's deputy, and said there was independent medical evidence, which could not be faked, to support the diagnosis.Symptoms of the condition are not easily observed and that could explain why Wilk was not previously diagnosed, said Dr. Michael Maher, a Tampa physician and psychiatrist, in two days of testimony that ended Monday in federal court.
"I am very confident that he ... suffers from AIDS dementia," Maher said last week.Another defense medical expert is expected to testify that MRI and other scans of Wilk's brain show evidence of dementia.
The Government rested and painted a pretty awful picture of Wilk.
Now Wilk is putting on evidence that he had AIDS dementia (via Sun-Sentinel), which is why he did what he did:
An expert witness testified for the defense that Kenneth Wilk had AIDS dementia on the day he fatally shot a Broward sheriff's deputy, and said there was independent medical evidence, which could not be faked, to support the diagnosis.Symptoms of the condition are not easily observed and that could explain why Wilk was not previously diagnosed, said Dr. Michael Maher, a Tampa physician and psychiatrist, in two days of testimony that ended Monday in federal court.
"I am very confident that he ... suffers from AIDS dementia," Maher said last week.Another defense medical expert is expected to testify that MRI and other scans of Wilk's brain show evidence of dementia.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Jimmy Johnson in Court...
...for jury selection.
Judge King cut him loose -- after figuring out who he was:
A third fellow stepped forward and said his name was James Johnson. He knew the importance of jury duty, he said, but he had a special houseguest and, please, if he wasn't really needed, could he be excused?
Besides, he said, he'd been a defendant in a few minor civil suits, so maybe the lawyers wouldn't want him anyway.
'I said, `What's your business?' '' King recalls. Fox Sports analyst, he said.
King looked at him funny. ''Did you coach?'' ``Yes.''
''Where?'' King asked. Miami Dolphins, Dallas Cowboys, University of Miami, Oklahoma State. He rattled off others -- Iowa State, Wichita State.
''That's enough,'' said King as folks in the courtroom laughed. By then, the judge realized it was Jimmy Johnson.
King, 79, joked about his lousy hearing and wisecracked: ``Now I've proven that I can't see very well, either. I should have recognized you.''
Johnson, 63, an Islamorada resident, told King his houseguest was Bill Parcells, who recently retired as Dallas head coach. He planned to take the Big Tuna fishing.
King excused Johnson, but not before asking him to predict the Gators' record for next season.
Johnson recalls that exchange. 'I said, `I have no idea. I'm the worst in the world at picking games.' ''
King may not have recognized him, but others did. As Johnson sat on the courthouse steps at 7:30 a.m., waiting for the building to open, he got waves from passersby and requests for autographs.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Daniel, assistant federal public defender Hector Flores and Key West attorney Charles Milligan say Johnson appeared smaller than on TV. Daniel: ''A very humble guy.'' Flores: ''Very charming.'' Milligan: ''Didn't have his hair as bouffant-ed up.'' Defense lawyer Albert Levin got an autograph.
Coincidentally, Johnson received a summons for state jury duty in Marathon that same day. He was excused from that, too -- after the feds called on his behalf to say he had already reported in Key West.
King says he had no problem putting Johnson on waivers. ``We accommodate people.''
Judge King cut him loose -- after figuring out who he was:
A third fellow stepped forward and said his name was James Johnson. He knew the importance of jury duty, he said, but he had a special houseguest and, please, if he wasn't really needed, could he be excused?
Besides, he said, he'd been a defendant in a few minor civil suits, so maybe the lawyers wouldn't want him anyway.
'I said, `What's your business?' '' King recalls. Fox Sports analyst, he said.
King looked at him funny. ''Did you coach?'' ``Yes.''
''Where?'' King asked. Miami Dolphins, Dallas Cowboys, University of Miami, Oklahoma State. He rattled off others -- Iowa State, Wichita State.
''That's enough,'' said King as folks in the courtroom laughed. By then, the judge realized it was Jimmy Johnson.
King, 79, joked about his lousy hearing and wisecracked: ``Now I've proven that I can't see very well, either. I should have recognized you.''
Johnson, 63, an Islamorada resident, told King his houseguest was Bill Parcells, who recently retired as Dallas head coach. He planned to take the Big Tuna fishing.
King excused Johnson, but not before asking him to predict the Gators' record for next season.
Johnson recalls that exchange. 'I said, `I have no idea. I'm the worst in the world at picking games.' ''
King may not have recognized him, but others did. As Johnson sat on the courthouse steps at 7:30 a.m., waiting for the building to open, he got waves from passersby and requests for autographs.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Daniel, assistant federal public defender Hector Flores and Key West attorney Charles Milligan say Johnson appeared smaller than on TV. Daniel: ''A very humble guy.'' Flores: ''Very charming.'' Milligan: ''Didn't have his hair as bouffant-ed up.'' Defense lawyer Albert Levin got an autograph.
Coincidentally, Johnson received a summons for state jury duty in Marathon that same day. He was excused from that, too -- after the feds called on his behalf to say he had already reported in Key West.
King says he had no problem putting Johnson on waivers. ``We accommodate people.''
Back to work
Sorry for the slowwww blogging, but I was at my ten year law school reunion in Boston this weekend. This guy seemed to get all the attention for attending his 25 year reunion...
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Don't mess with Judge Cooke
Apparently a reporter from CBS radio tried to bring in a transmitting device to the overflow media room in the Jose Padilla trial to broadcast jury selection. Judge Cooke issues a rule to show cause as to why CBS should not be held in contempt of court.
From the Order (proving that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction):
On Tuesday, April 24, 2007, AT&T representatives presented themselves at this
Case 0:04-cr-60001-MGC Document 1018 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
courthouse with a work order to install an ISDN feed in the press overflow room. An ISDN feed
is a circuit-switched telephone network system designed to allow digital transmission of voice
and data over ordinary telephone lines. The United States Marshals Service contacted this Court to confirm authorization for the work order. The Court had not granted such authorization, and was unaware of any such work order having been issued to AT&T.
Further investigation revealed that a request had been made to the Clerk of Court for an
ISDN feed to be installed, but that request had been denied. It was then discovered that the
contact on the AT&T work order was Peter King, from CBS Radio, Orlando. Thus, it appears
that Peter King of CBS has violated this Court’s Order Regarding Media Conduct and Press
Media Room. [DE 979] . As Mr. King holds himself out to be an employee of the CBS network,
and not simply a local affiliate, it would also appear that CBS, through Mr. King’s actions, has
violated the Order as well.
From the Order (proving that sometimes truth is stranger than fiction):
On Tuesday, April 24, 2007, AT&T representatives presented themselves at this
Case 0:04-cr-60001-MGC Document 1018 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
courthouse with a work order to install an ISDN feed in the press overflow room. An ISDN feed
is a circuit-switched telephone network system designed to allow digital transmission of voice
and data over ordinary telephone lines. The United States Marshals Service contacted this Court to confirm authorization for the work order. The Court had not granted such authorization, and was unaware of any such work order having been issued to AT&T.
Further investigation revealed that a request had been made to the Clerk of Court for an
ISDN feed to be installed, but that request had been denied. It was then discovered that the
contact on the AT&T work order was Peter King, from CBS Radio, Orlando. Thus, it appears
that Peter King of CBS has violated this Court’s Order Regarding Media Conduct and Press
Media Room. [DE 979] . As Mr. King holds himself out to be an employee of the CBS network,
and not simply a local affiliate, it would also appear that CBS, through Mr. King’s actions, has
violated the Order as well.
"This strategy of ‘shaking down’ defendants with nightmarishly expensive litigation in pursuit of attorney fees must not be rewarded.”
All sorts of fun stuff in the Review this morning, including an article about attorney's fees. That quote above is from Judge Moreno from a 2003 case and the article discusses a recent Judge Zloch case where a six figure fee was requested in a relatively minor case.
The cover story is also interesting -- it's about Judge Middlebrooks ruling on trade dress infringement in the energy drink world. Everyone wants small 8 ounce bottles with vertical lettering, but that's not enough for an infringement case: "The notion that a company can appropriate a standard 8-ounce bottle, utilize vertical lettering of its product name, and preclude competitors from using that bottle with their own lettering . . . seems to be nothing but a thinly veiled effort to stifle legitimate competition." Attorney fees in that case to American Body Building (to be paid by Vital Pharmaceuticals --VPX) of $360,000.
If energy drinks aren't your thing and you are more into ice cream, then read this Sun-Sentinel story about Carvel's niece wanting to dig him up to study the body for foul play.
The cover story is also interesting -- it's about Judge Middlebrooks ruling on trade dress infringement in the energy drink world. Everyone wants small 8 ounce bottles with vertical lettering, but that's not enough for an infringement case: "The notion that a company can appropriate a standard 8-ounce bottle, utilize vertical lettering of its product name, and preclude competitors from using that bottle with their own lettering . . . seems to be nothing but a thinly veiled effort to stifle legitimate competition." Attorney fees in that case to American Body Building (to be paid by Vital Pharmaceuticals --VPX) of $360,000.
If energy drinks aren't your thing and you are more into ice cream, then read this Sun-Sentinel story about Carvel's niece wanting to dig him up to study the body for foul play.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Posting Plea Agreements?
I'm quoted in the DBR article this morning criticizing the new policy in this District of not making plea agreements available online. Every other document in a criminal docket is available (unless it's sealed) except for plea agreements. Instead, you have to go down to the clerk's office to make a copy the old-fashioned way. This is a silly policy, which is only in place in this District (as far as I know). Hopefully it will be changed soon (the local rules committee is studying it).
If there are safety concerns for cooperating witnesses, then those concerns should be addressed in that particular case, but to have a blanket policy making it more difficult to get these documents.... Haven't we learned from the State scandal involving secret docs?
If there are safety concerns for cooperating witnesses, then those concerns should be addressed in that particular case, but to have a blanket policy making it more difficult to get these documents.... Haven't we learned from the State scandal involving secret docs?
Dehumanization
Prosecutors in every trial try to dehumanize "the defendant." And defense lawyers always try to humanize "Mr. Defendant." So far, it appears that the Government is doing its job in the Wilk case. Check out this Sun-Sentintel article about what the jurors have seen so far:
The murder case against Kenneth Wilk has been one of disturbing images.The photo of a dark puddle of blood on the floor. That's where Broward Sheriff's Deputy Todd Fatta fell after a bullet pierced his chest while serving a federal warrant at Wilk's home. The autopsy photos. They showed the damage wreaked by the fatal shot that tore through Fatta's liver and severed his spinal cord. And the sordid images of child pornography. Prosecutors say Wilk and his partner possessed dozens of them on their personal computers.
The murder case against Kenneth Wilk has been one of disturbing images.The photo of a dark puddle of blood on the floor. That's where Broward Sheriff's Deputy Todd Fatta fell after a bullet pierced his chest while serving a federal warrant at Wilk's home. The autopsy photos. They showed the damage wreaked by the fatal shot that tore through Fatta's liver and severed his spinal cord. And the sordid images of child pornography. Prosecutors say Wilk and his partner possessed dozens of them on their personal computers.
Friday, April 20, 2007
No thanks
As posted yesterday, Louis Robles was supposed to plead guilty this morning in front of Judge Gold. The parties had agreed to 10 years in prison.
Well, not so fast. Judge Gold did not accept the deal today and rescheduled it in a month. Judge Gold has rejected plea agreements before, notably in the Al Gutman case.
At last week's symposium on ethics at the University of Miami, there was a panel discussion with 5 judges who were asked if they ever rejected agreed to pleas. They all responded that they did not. Should judges reject plea agreements? Comments?
Well, not so fast. Judge Gold did not accept the deal today and rescheduled it in a month. Judge Gold has rejected plea agreements before, notably in the Al Gutman case.
At last week's symposium on ethics at the University of Miami, there was a panel discussion with 5 judges who were asked if they ever rejected agreed to pleas. They all responded that they did not. Should judges reject plea agreements? Comments?
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Pretty pleas(e)
Lots of pleas being reported today. Former asbestos lawyer Louis Robles is taking ten years. And the Hollywood cops are pleading to a min/man ten years, with the hope of a cooperation reduction.
Think about where you were *ten years* ago. I think all of us forget how freaking long that is.
Think about where you were *ten years* ago. I think all of us forget how freaking long that is.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Jose Padilla trial to start
The lawyers about to start trying the Jose Padilla case must have that nervous stomach feeling that all trial lawyers get the night before... There's nothing like a criminal trial. The stakes are as high as they can be. The pressure is through the roof. Nothing in the law is more exciting and exhilarating... And the biggest trial in the Nation starts tomorrow in Miami. United States of America v. Jose Padilla. Start your engines.
Our local beat is of course all over the start of the Jose Padilla trial.
"Padilla terror trial is ready to unfold; After five years in detention, Jose Padilla will finally have his day in court as jury selection begins Monday in a high-profile terrorism trial in Miami": This article appears today in The Miami Herald.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports today that "5 years later, Padilla terror case closer to trial."
And The Associated Press reports that "Padilla Jury Selection Opening."
Friday, April 13, 2007
"Sports agent guilty in Cuban ballplayer case"
That's the headline in today's Herald re the smuggling trial of Gustavo Dominguez. The same jury found Roberto Yosvany, charged with operating the boat, not guilty of the conspiracy and smuggling charges.
I won't really be able to post much today or this weekend as I won't have computer access....
I won't really be able to post much today or this weekend as I won't have computer access....
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Trial dogs...
There isn't a better District to be a lawyer (or to be a blogger!) -- we've got the most interesting cases and the most trials. Jose Padilla starts Monday and I've been writing a bunch about that. But right now, there are two other very high profile trials proceeding.
The first is the Kenneth Wilk cop-killing death penalty trial before Judge Cohn. From reading the coverage (Vanessa Blum is covering it almost every day -- here's the latest article -- and here is Nikki Waller's coverage), it looks to me like the defense may need to focus on saving this man's life instead of going for the NG. It's a very difficult decision in a DP case -- do you go full guns blazing for the NG and perhaps alienate the jury or do you try to keep the jury sympathetic enough to your client so that they don't want to kill him. I've never done a death penalty case before (unlike Wilk's very experienced DP lawyer Bill Matthewman) so thankfully I haven't had to make that crazy hard decision.
Then we've also got the Gustavo Dominguez, sports agent smuggling case going on in Key West before Judge Moore. The Defendant has taken the stand (according to today's Herald). There is no better drama than that. It's also the most difficult decision a defense lawyer makes in any trial. Apparently the defense is that Dominguez paid the drug smuggling convict $225K not to help smuggle but because he was afraid for his and his family's life. If the jury believes him, he'll walk. If they don't, bye bye. Forget about reasonable doubt when the Defendant testifies.
Where else can you get this kind of great stuff?
The first is the Kenneth Wilk cop-killing death penalty trial before Judge Cohn. From reading the coverage (Vanessa Blum is covering it almost every day -- here's the latest article -- and here is Nikki Waller's coverage), it looks to me like the defense may need to focus on saving this man's life instead of going for the NG. It's a very difficult decision in a DP case -- do you go full guns blazing for the NG and perhaps alienate the jury or do you try to keep the jury sympathetic enough to your client so that they don't want to kill him. I've never done a death penalty case before (unlike Wilk's very experienced DP lawyer Bill Matthewman) so thankfully I haven't had to make that crazy hard decision.
Then we've also got the Gustavo Dominguez, sports agent smuggling case going on in Key West before Judge Moore. The Defendant has taken the stand (according to today's Herald). There is no better drama than that. It's also the most difficult decision a defense lawyer makes in any trial. Apparently the defense is that Dominguez paid the drug smuggling convict $225K not to help smuggle but because he was afraid for his and his family's life. If the jury believes him, he'll walk. If they don't, bye bye. Forget about reasonable doubt when the Defendant testifies.
Where else can you get this kind of great stuff?
Monday, April 09, 2007
Judge Cooke denies Jose Padilla's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct
Judge Cooke issued a blockbuster ruling late tonight, denying Jose Padilla's motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct -- without conducting a hearing. She says she need not conduct a hearing because she is denying the motion on legal grounds, accepting all allegations made by Padilla regarding torture as true.
UPDATE -- HERE IS THE ORDER (thanks to Discourse.net for posting -- I still haven't figured out how to do that!)
Here is the rationale from the concluding paragraphs of the 12 page order (lots of lengthy footnotes omitted):
First, the fact that the governmental conduct occurred at a time and place removed from the crimes charged makes the remedy Padilla is seeking considerably more attenuated and arbitrary. Short of resorting to a ‘two wrongs make a right’ judicial process, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain how the remedy sought emanates from the infirmity defendant describes. This is considerably distinguishable from a government entrapment scenario, where the crime that the defendant is charged with is the crux of the outrageous government conduct claim.
Second, the outrageous conduct occurred while Padilla was under military control at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. At this time, Padilla was being held under Presidential orders in connection with his enemy combatant status and had not been charged with the crimes he is currently facing. This further attenuates Padilla’s outrageous government conduct claim. Even if Padilla’s due process rights were violated while being held at the Naval Brig as an enemy combatant, he fails to explain how this violation should result in the dismissal of distinct crimes that he was not charged with at that point.
Third, Mr. Padilla fails to explain why suppressing governmental use of any evidence obtained from him at the Naval Brig is insufficient for purposes of this trial. In his motion, Padilla acknowledges that the government has already averred not to seek introduction of any of the Naval Brig evidence at trial. Despite summarily rejecting this remedy as “clearly inadequate,” Padilla fails to support this contention or explain why his requested remedy is more appropriate. In fact, in his motion, Padilla relies heavily on United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d. Cir. 1974), a case where the Second Circuit sanctions this very approach. Padilla’s Motion concedes that “the court in Toscanino noted that many cases involving due process violations center on unlawful government acquisition of evidence and that, in those instances, the proper remedy would be the exclusion of the tainted evidence.” Def. Mot. at 11.
Mr. Padilla fails to present a cognizable claim of outrageous government conduct entitling him to dismissal of the indictment. The objectionable conduct Padilla claims violated his due process rights occurred during his military detainment in isolation of the crimes charged. Padilla also fails to adequately explain why excluding any unlawfully obtained evidence would not be an appropriate remedy in this case. Applying the exclusionary rule to bar inclusion of any illegally obtained evidence would sufficiently satisfy due process concerns. This may ultimately be a moot point since the government has averred not to utilize any Naval Brig evidence in its case. However, should the government decide to make use of any such evidence, an appropriate hearing will be scheduled to determine to what extent it is admissible.
I'm sure the government is breathing a big sigh of relief this morning. The last thing it wanted were these allegations to be aired in open court. What I'm wondering is -- if torture isn't outrageous government conduct, then what is? Perhaps we should just do away with the doctrine altogether. Padilla now how issue #1 -- and a very interesting one at that -- for his appeal if he loses at trial.
UPDATE -- MSM is catching up. The AP report is here.
UPDATE -- HERE IS THE ORDER (thanks to Discourse.net for posting -- I still haven't figured out how to do that!)
Here is the rationale from the concluding paragraphs of the 12 page order (lots of lengthy footnotes omitted):
First, the fact that the governmental conduct occurred at a time and place removed from the crimes charged makes the remedy Padilla is seeking considerably more attenuated and arbitrary. Short of resorting to a ‘two wrongs make a right’ judicial process, it is difficult for this Court to ascertain how the remedy sought emanates from the infirmity defendant describes. This is considerably distinguishable from a government entrapment scenario, where the crime that the defendant is charged with is the crux of the outrageous government conduct claim.
Second, the outrageous conduct occurred while Padilla was under military control at the Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. At this time, Padilla was being held under Presidential orders in connection with his enemy combatant status and had not been charged with the crimes he is currently facing. This further attenuates Padilla’s outrageous government conduct claim. Even if Padilla’s due process rights were violated while being held at the Naval Brig as an enemy combatant, he fails to explain how this violation should result in the dismissal of distinct crimes that he was not charged with at that point.
Third, Mr. Padilla fails to explain why suppressing governmental use of any evidence obtained from him at the Naval Brig is insufficient for purposes of this trial. In his motion, Padilla acknowledges that the government has already averred not to seek introduction of any of the Naval Brig evidence at trial. Despite summarily rejecting this remedy as “clearly inadequate,” Padilla fails to support this contention or explain why his requested remedy is more appropriate. In fact, in his motion, Padilla relies heavily on United States v. Toscanino, 500 F.2d 267 (2d. Cir. 1974), a case where the Second Circuit sanctions this very approach. Padilla’s Motion concedes that “the court in Toscanino noted that many cases involving due process violations center on unlawful government acquisition of evidence and that, in those instances, the proper remedy would be the exclusion of the tainted evidence.” Def. Mot. at 11.
Mr. Padilla fails to present a cognizable claim of outrageous government conduct entitling him to dismissal of the indictment. The objectionable conduct Padilla claims violated his due process rights occurred during his military detainment in isolation of the crimes charged. Padilla also fails to adequately explain why excluding any unlawfully obtained evidence would not be an appropriate remedy in this case. Applying the exclusionary rule to bar inclusion of any illegally obtained evidence would sufficiently satisfy due process concerns. This may ultimately be a moot point since the government has averred not to utilize any Naval Brig evidence in its case. However, should the government decide to make use of any such evidence, an appropriate hearing will be scheduled to determine to what extent it is admissible.
I'm sure the government is breathing a big sigh of relief this morning. The last thing it wanted were these allegations to be aired in open court. What I'm wondering is -- if torture isn't outrageous government conduct, then what is? Perhaps we should just do away with the doctrine altogether. Padilla now how issue #1 -- and a very interesting one at that -- for his appeal if he loses at trial.
UPDATE -- MSM is catching up. The AP report is here.
"Judge rules high school club can meet pending outcome of lawsuit"
That's the CNN headline about Judge Moore's ruling:
A high school club that promotes tolerance of gays must be allowed to meet while a lawsuit is pending, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore ruled Friday that Okeechobee High School must grant the same privileges to the Gay-Straight Alliance that it grants other clubs, as mandated by the federal Equal Access Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Okeechobee school board in November on behalf of the high school's Gay-Straight Alliance after school officials said the group was a "sex-based" organization that would violate its abstinence-only education policy.
In his 12-page ruling, Moore wrote that the group and its founder, high school senior Yasmin Gonzalez, have "demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success" on their claim that the school violated federal law when it prohibited the club from meeting.
A high school club that promotes tolerance of gays must be allowed to meet while a lawsuit is pending, a federal judge ruled.
U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore ruled Friday that Okeechobee High School must grant the same privileges to the Gay-Straight Alliance that it grants other clubs, as mandated by the federal Equal Access Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Okeechobee school board in November on behalf of the high school's Gay-Straight Alliance after school officials said the group was a "sex-based" organization that would violate its abstinence-only education policy.
In his 12-page ruling, Moore wrote that the group and its founder, high school senior Yasmin Gonzalez, have "demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success" on their claim that the school violated federal law when it prohibited the club from meeting.
DBR on the Cuban Five
Picking up on our coverage here, the DBR discussed in detail the Cuban Spy appeal:
The 11th Circuit has set oral arguments for Aug. 20 to hear whether there was sufficient evidence to convict one of the defendants of conspiracy to commit murder; whether there was prosecutorial misconduct; whether prosecutors improperly kept classified material from the defendants; and whether sentencing guidelines were followed. In August 2005, the full 11th Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard’s ruling — and overturned a three-judge panel ruling — that it was fair to conduct the trial in Miami despite the strong anti-Fidel Castro feelings there. Among the nine issues to be argued in August, the most important one for the defense is the sufficiency of evidence on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. Lawyers will argue that prosecutors overreached in charging one of the defendants with that count.
***
Whatever the panel does, the case is eventually headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the venue issue and other issues, say lawyers involved in the case. “The defense team remains optimistic and hopeful for a just outcome,” said Richard Klugh, an assistant federal public defender in Miami who represents Fernando Gonzales, who was convicted of failing to register as a foreign agent as well as immigration violations. “There are substantial issues of fundamental fairness at stake.” “We will never let the venue issue die,” McKenna said. “We will go to a higher court. We feel so strongly about it.” But Guy Lewis, who was U.S. Attorney in Miami at the time of the trial, said he’s confident the prosecution will prevail on appeal. “The defense arguments have no merit,” said Lewis, now an attorney at Lewis Tein in Coral Gables. “This is just Monday morning quarterbacking. The sooner the court hears the arguments, the sooner they’ll reject them and bring finality to the case.”
If you are interested in the briefs, you can read them at the DBR cite.
The 11th Circuit has set oral arguments for Aug. 20 to hear whether there was sufficient evidence to convict one of the defendants of conspiracy to commit murder; whether there was prosecutorial misconduct; whether prosecutors improperly kept classified material from the defendants; and whether sentencing guidelines were followed. In August 2005, the full 11th Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard’s ruling — and overturned a three-judge panel ruling — that it was fair to conduct the trial in Miami despite the strong anti-Fidel Castro feelings there. Among the nine issues to be argued in August, the most important one for the defense is the sufficiency of evidence on the charge of conspiracy to commit murder. Lawyers will argue that prosecutors overreached in charging one of the defendants with that count.
***
Whatever the panel does, the case is eventually headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the venue issue and other issues, say lawyers involved in the case. “The defense team remains optimistic and hopeful for a just outcome,” said Richard Klugh, an assistant federal public defender in Miami who represents Fernando Gonzales, who was convicted of failing to register as a foreign agent as well as immigration violations. “There are substantial issues of fundamental fairness at stake.” “We will never let the venue issue die,” McKenna said. “We will go to a higher court. We feel so strongly about it.” But Guy Lewis, who was U.S. Attorney in Miami at the time of the trial, said he’s confident the prosecution will prevail on appeal. “The defense arguments have no merit,” said Lewis, now an attorney at Lewis Tein in Coral Gables. “This is just Monday morning quarterbacking. The sooner the court hears the arguments, the sooner they’ll reject them and bring finality to the case.”
If you are interested in the briefs, you can read them at the DBR cite.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Picking a jury in federal court
This week, lawyers have begun jury selection in the Kenneth Wilk case. The Sun-Sentinel has coverage here. And jury selection started and was completed yesterday in the baseball smuggling case in Key West. The Miami Herald covers that story here. On the 16th, the Padilla trial gets up and running with voir dire.
Jury selection in Padilla and Wilk will take days, which is not the norm in federal court. Typically, as was the case in the Keys, jury selection in federal court lasts less than a day and sometimes less than a half a day. Lawyers are lucky to get 15 minutes a side to conduct voir dire.
Thoughts?
Jury selection in Padilla and Wilk will take days, which is not the norm in federal court. Typically, as was the case in the Keys, jury selection in federal court lasts less than a day and sometimes less than a half a day. Lawyers are lucky to get 15 minutes a side to conduct voir dire.
Thoughts?
Fire rescue to the Tower Building...
... to pull out a District Judge from a stuck elevator.
No joke.
When is the new building going to open!?!
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
D. Kyle Sampson
Although some of you thought that the trivia question below about D. Kyle Sampson was another April Fool's post, it was not. He actually tried a felon in possession case -- United States v. Heron Stepherson -- in the Southern District of Florida in March 2004. Judge Hurley presided and the local AUSA was Lothrop Morristhe. AFPD was Bob Adler.
Thanks to one of my favorite readers for the answer to the trivia question!
As for felon in possession cases, check out Rumpole's riff here regarding gun prosecutions in both state and federal court. He raises an issue that the Federal PDs have been complaining about for a long time. The problem is that the cases which permitted dual prosecutions were decided when the feds did not really pursue the run of the mill state gun or drug case. Now that it's common practice, those cases really should be reconsidered. Or better yet, the Justice Department should follow its "petite policy."
As for American Idol tonight, Sanjaya Malakar won't be voted off. My bet is on Phil Stacey or Haley Scarnato to go.
UPDATE -- here are portions of the "petite policy":
"The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.
"This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. ...
"The first substantive prerequisite is that the matter must involve a substantial federal interest. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.230. Matters that come within the national investigative or prosecutorial priorities established by the Department are more likely than others to satisfy this requirement.
"The second substantive prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest. That presumption, however, may be overcome when there are factors suggesting an unvindicated federal interest."
United States Attorneys' Manual 9-2.031
Thanks to one of my favorite readers for the answer to the trivia question!
As for felon in possession cases, check out Rumpole's riff here regarding gun prosecutions in both state and federal court. He raises an issue that the Federal PDs have been complaining about for a long time. The problem is that the cases which permitted dual prosecutions were decided when the feds did not really pursue the run of the mill state gun or drug case. Now that it's common practice, those cases really should be reconsidered. Or better yet, the Justice Department should follow its "petite policy."
As for American Idol tonight, Sanjaya Malakar won't be voted off. My bet is on Phil Stacey or Haley Scarnato to go.
UPDATE -- here are portions of the "petite policy":
"The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.
"This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. ...
"The first substantive prerequisite is that the matter must involve a substantial federal interest. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.230. Matters that come within the national investigative or prosecutorial priorities established by the Department are more likely than others to satisfy this requirement.
"The second substantive prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest. That presumption, however, may be overcome when there are factors suggesting an unvindicated federal interest."
United States Attorneys' Manual 9-2.031
Monday, April 02, 2007
Cuban Five oral argument
Now that the venue issue has been resolved, the Eleventh Circuit has set the Cuban Five case (Cuban Spy case) for special oral argument on August 20, 2007 on the remaining 15 issues.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Southern District of Florida Trivia
A commentor asks:
Anyone know anything about this case?
Yesterday during his testimony we learned that the only criminal case ever tried by [Alberto Gonzalez's] Chief Asst. AG and Rove look-alike, D. Kyle Sampson was in 2004 in the SDFL--apparently it was a felon in possession case w/ a PWID "narcotics." Sampson testfied in response to questioning by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that he was "specially assigned" to USAO SDFL to try that case. WHY? What was so special about a case like that that the Dep. Chief Asst. AG was sent down to SDFL try it? Inquiring minds want to know.
Death Penalty trial to start this week
Vanessa Blum has a lengthy article about the Kenneth Wilk death penalty trial (SDFLA previous coverage here), which is to start this week in front of Judge Cohn. Apparently the defense is going to argue that Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense. They will not be able to argue that the victim, Todd Fatta, was using steroids. Here's the intro to the article:
I don't believe anyone from the SDFLA has ever been sentenced to death, but I'm not sure about this. Anyone know for sure?
VB was a busy bee the last couple days, with stories on the McCay brothers' sentencing (Michael McCay got 6 1/2 years and brother Robert got 15 months) and the sentencing of a doctor who worked at Mutual Benefits Corp (Clark Mitchell received 8 years).
And thanks to Rumpole for covering the story below. More at his blog.
In the beginning, it seemed like a routine operation. Roughly a dozen
Broward Sheriff's Office deputies arrived in the Fort Lauderdale neighborhood of
Coral Highlands on Aug. 19, 2004, to carry out an arrest warrant."Police!" they
yelled before breaking through the front door. "Warrant!"It was then, prosecutors will tell jurors, Kenneth Wilk crouched behind his kitchen counter with a Winchester 94 lever-action hunting rifle. When the officers entered, Wilk opened fire, killing Deputy Todd Fatta, 33, with a single shot to the chest.If convicted of first-degree murder, Wilk, 45, faces the death penalty. As his trial begins this week before U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort Lauderdale federal court, defense lawyers have no plans to dispute Wilk fired the shots that killed Fatta and wounded a second officer.Instead, the central question for jurors deciding Wilk's fate will be whether the gunfire was premeditated.Wilk's attorneys, Bill Matthewman and Rafael Rodriguez, have said they plan to argue it was not. They contend Wilk was in the grips of AIDS-related dementia and believed he was acting in self-defense.
I don't believe anyone from the SDFLA has ever been sentenced to death, but I'm not sure about this. Anyone know for sure?
VB was a busy bee the last couple days, with stories on the McCay brothers' sentencing (Michael McCay got 6 1/2 years and brother Robert got 15 months) and the sentencing of a doctor who worked at Mutual Benefits Corp (Clark Mitchell received 8 years).
And thanks to Rumpole for covering the story below. More at his blog.
FEDERAL JUDGES RESPOND TO STATE PLANS TO SELL JUDICIAL CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP
From tomorrows Daily Business Review, comes an excerpt of this article:
"The Chief Judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit has announced plans to sell corporate sponsorship for the court, courtrooms, and small corporate logos which can be placed on a Judge's Robe. The plan is being pushed forward to meet large anticipated deficits in local court funding. Included in the plans are the renaming of the criminal courthouse to the Fed-EX Gerstein Justice Building, renaming the Civil Courthouse the Kinkos Civil Courthouse, and having VISA become the official credit card of the 11th Judicial Circuit.
"While no Federal Judge would speak for the record, most were shocked at the blatant selling of corporate sponsorship for the State Judiciary. Said one Judge: 'I understand the rules are a bit looser over there, but this sounds like it could get them into trouble. What is someone is being sued by Kinkos over failure to pay a bill and they have to defend the suit in the Kinkos Courthouse? I'm not sure they thought this all the way through.'
"Another Judge was more dismissive of the issue: 'Typical State Court nearsightedness. This issue will end up over here and then they will get embarassed."
Rumpole thanks Mr. Markus for allowing us access to his blog for this story which bears watching closely.
"The Chief Judge of the 11th Judicial Circuit has announced plans to sell corporate sponsorship for the court, courtrooms, and small corporate logos which can be placed on a Judge's Robe. The plan is being pushed forward to meet large anticipated deficits in local court funding. Included in the plans are the renaming of the criminal courthouse to the Fed-EX Gerstein Justice Building, renaming the Civil Courthouse the Kinkos Civil Courthouse, and having VISA become the official credit card of the 11th Judicial Circuit.
"While no Federal Judge would speak for the record, most were shocked at the blatant selling of corporate sponsorship for the State Judiciary. Said one Judge: 'I understand the rules are a bit looser over there, but this sounds like it could get them into trouble. What is someone is being sued by Kinkos over failure to pay a bill and they have to defend the suit in the Kinkos Courthouse? I'm not sure they thought this all the way through.'
"Another Judge was more dismissive of the issue: 'Typical State Court nearsightedness. This issue will end up over here and then they will get embarassed."
Rumpole thanks Mr. Markus for allowing us access to his blog for this story which bears watching closely.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
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
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
Monday, March 26, 2007
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...
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.
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.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
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)
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)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
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....
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....
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
"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."
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Dude!
I couldn't pass up this story (by Kathleen McGrory and Nikki Waller) and on a Broward judge who was arrested for smoking pot while sitting on a bench in Stanley Goldman Park, just west of I95 near Hollywood Boulevard. Only in South Florida...
Actually, maybe I should say, Only in America -- the Supreme Court heard argument today in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case.
Actually, maybe I should say, Only in America -- the Supreme Court heard argument today in the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case.
Ft. Pierce courthouse approved
Julie Kay has the scoop in today's DBR -- apparently Ft. Pierce has been tapped for a new federal courthouse.
Now the question is whether it will open before the Miami courthouse...
Now the question is whether it will open before the Miami courthouse...
Friday, March 16, 2007
News and Notes
Julie Kay writes today about Judge Moore's preclusion of the wet-foot, dry-foot defense in the baseball player smuggling case. Here's Judge Moore's order.
Jay Weaver discussed more discovery in Padilla here: " reputed al Qaeda member told U.S. authorities that the terror network scrutinized Jose Padilla as a recruit for Islamic extremism in 2000-01, according to a new document filed in federal court in Miami." And you can view the document discussed.
And to complete our federal court reporter trio, Vanessa Blum discusses the Hollywood cop hearing yesterday, in which Judge Seltzer granted the parties' request for extra time to resolve the matter before arraignment.
Jay Weaver discussed more discovery in Padilla here: " reputed al Qaeda member told U.S. authorities that the terror network scrutinized Jose Padilla as a recruit for Islamic extremism in 2000-01, according to a new document filed in federal court in Miami." And you can view the document discussed.
And to complete our federal court reporter trio, Vanessa Blum discusses the Hollywood cop hearing yesterday, in which Judge Seltzer granted the parties' request for extra time to resolve the matter before arraignment.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
OSCAR
Thanks for the suggestions in the comments on what to do about the name issue. So far, I've written a letter to the Clerk of the 11th Circuit and Judge Barkett, who authored the opinion, asking them to insert his middle name. We'll see if it works.
The story has hit the blogosphere, which I think may be a good thing. Check out Orin Kerr at Volokh, Adam Levin at Southern Criminal Law and Justice, and Rumpole, all discussing "David Markus".
UPDATE -- the problem has been fixed.
"11th Circuit ruling in fraud probe a defeat for insurance companies."
And a victory for Roberto Martinez and Curt Miner, the receivers for Mutual Benefits Corp. So reports today's DBR:
"The insurers, including giants like Indianapolis-based American United Life Insurance, said in their lawsuits they should be able to cancel all policies that were sold by policyholders to Mutual Benefits because several of the policyholders lied on their appliactions. They cited four people who had lied about their HIV-positive status."
Judge Moreno said nope and was affirmed by the 11th.
"The insurers, including giants like Indianapolis-based American United Life Insurance, said in their lawsuits they should be able to cancel all policies that were sold by policyholders to Mutual Benefits because several of the policyholders lied on their appliactions. They cited four people who had lied about their HIV-positive status."
Judge Moreno said nope and was affirmed by the 11th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)