The Southern District federal courthouses were mostly quiet Thursday and Friday as the Federal Public Defenders and CJA lawyers had their annual conference, this time in Naples. (Were you there Rumpole?)
The U.S. Attorney's Office was still working though, indicting this high-profile case (via the AP):
A 22-year-old Miami Beach man whose company had a contract to supply the U.S. military with ammunition for forces in Afghanistan has been charged along with three others with providing prohibited Chinese-made ammunition and saying it came from Albania.
Efraim Diveroli and two others charged in the case made their first appearance Friday afternoon in federal court in Miami. A fourth man was being charged in Utah.
Diveroli's company, AEY Inc., was paid more than $10 million for 35 shipments of ammunition that prosecutors say was manufactured in China.
Prosecutors contend AEY Inc. removed markings from containers to hide the fact they were manufactured in China. In each instance, Diveroli certified that the ammunition was manufactured in Albania and submitted an invoice for it, they said.
Diveroli's company was given a $298 million contract by the U.S. Army in 2007 to provide several types of ammunition. It was not clear how much of that contract had been paid, but the first shipment of ammunition listed in court documents was from June 2007.
Here's Alex Acosta, who is getting pretty good at the soundbite:
At a news conference, U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta said that quality control is one reason the government wants to know the manufacturer and origin of ammunition.
He said Diveroli's company "intentionally cut corners" and that it was "risking the lives of our troops and allies." He also said that the ammunition was "old" but did not say when it was manufactured. He said the defendants could face more than ten years in prison if convicted.
Defense lawyer Howard Srebnick (he is co-counsel with Hy Shapiro) responds:
Diveroli's attorney, Howard Srebnick, said in an e-mail that the government has "misconstrued" the law his client is accused of breaking. He said the government knew Diveroli bought the ammunition from the Albanian government and that it was made in China before a munitions embargo.
If you are looking for some time to kill on Monday morning, check out EW's top 100 movies, TV shows, books, videogames, tech, (and others) of the past 25 years here. Pulp Fiction is a fair choice for #1, but my top TV show is Seinfeld. As for video games, I agree with Tetris, but you gotta move Tecmo Bowl way up...
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
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Onion covers Kozinski
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Blogging about your own criminal trial...
... as a defendant.
UPDATED BELOW
Yup, you can read about photographer Carlos Miller's trial in state court from Miller's perspective.
I find it fascinating. Apparently, the prosecutor asked Judge Joe Fernandez (in state county court) to prohibit Miller from blogging about the trial. Fernandez denied that request.
Interesting that in a trial about First Amendment rights that the prosecutor would ask for the defendant not to be able to blog about the case....
Good for Judge Fernandez.
Hat Tip Rumpole.
UPDATE -- Well, the trial is over. And blogger/defendant Carlos Miller is not happy with the result. And apparently, Judge Fernandez is not happy with Mr. Miller, sentencing him to more probation than requested by the prosecutor.
UPDATED BELOW
Yup, you can read about photographer Carlos Miller's trial in state court from Miller's perspective.
I find it fascinating. Apparently, the prosecutor asked Judge Joe Fernandez (in state county court) to prohibit Miller from blogging about the trial. Fernandez denied that request.
Interesting that in a trial about First Amendment rights that the prosecutor would ask for the defendant not to be able to blog about the case....
Good for Judge Fernandez.
Hat Tip Rumpole.
UPDATE -- Well, the trial is over. And blogger/defendant Carlos Miller is not happy with the result. And apparently, Judge Fernandez is not happy with Mr. Miller, sentencing him to more probation than requested by the prosecutor.
Monday, June 16, 2008
For real?
If this GamePolitics post is to be believed, the following occurred:
1. Jack Thompson hand-delivered a letter to Chief Judge Moreno.
2. That letter said in part: "We find yesterday that enemy combatants at Guantanamo are to get more due process from federal judges than what I am to have. I guess my "mistake" was not killing 3000 people to make my point... I demand a hearing."
3. After receiving the letter, Moreno sent U.S. Marshals to Thompson's house.
4. Thompson then wrote this letter to Moreno, which said in part:
I was visited today by two U.S. Marshals who were nice gentlemen, and very professional and courteous in their dealings with me. My complaint is not with them...
I have been asking the Justice Department simply to meet with me about [the video game industry's] criminal targeting of me for harm... Our US Attorney here has obstructed that effort... Instead of being afforded the Justice Department investigation to which I am entitled, I get today harassment from that same Justice Department...
When you and the Justice Department dispatch U.S. Marshals to my home because of a letter I wrote you last week complaining about misconduct by District Court Judges here in the Southern District, the purpose of that visit was to intimidate and harass me...
The notion that I pose some sort of physical threat to you or to the judiciary or to anyone else down here is a cruel joke. The two Marshals said, “If you had actually hand-delivered the letter to Judge Moreno, we would be concerned.” To that I said, “But I did. I did that last week because the gentlemen at the metal detectors would not deliver it, and THEY TOLD ME TO DELIVER IT TO YOU. I buzzed into your inner offices on the thirteenth floor, and I politely handed the letter to your clerk, who politely took it.
If I were a danger to anyone, that would have been the time for me to have proven it, right? In fact, I have never threatened anyone in my entire life, and you know that, and the Marshals said they knew that. They were apologetic about being dispatched to my home. This is outrageous, Judge. Simply outrageous.
5. Thompson then sent this letter to the House Judiciary Committee.
Is all this for real?
Thompson always manages to weave in to his letters and motions the current event of the day and then somehow make those events about him. He has material from the Supreme Court Guantanamo case, the Kozinski stuff, and other current events. Sorry for ruining the next half hour of your day as you go read this stuff. You won't be able to turn away....
1. Jack Thompson hand-delivered a letter to Chief Judge Moreno.
2. That letter said in part: "We find yesterday that enemy combatants at Guantanamo are to get more due process from federal judges than what I am to have. I guess my "mistake" was not killing 3000 people to make my point... I demand a hearing."
3. After receiving the letter, Moreno sent U.S. Marshals to Thompson's house.
4. Thompson then wrote this letter to Moreno, which said in part:
I was visited today by two U.S. Marshals who were nice gentlemen, and very professional and courteous in their dealings with me. My complaint is not with them...
I have been asking the Justice Department simply to meet with me about [the video game industry's] criminal targeting of me for harm... Our US Attorney here has obstructed that effort... Instead of being afforded the Justice Department investigation to which I am entitled, I get today harassment from that same Justice Department...
When you and the Justice Department dispatch U.S. Marshals to my home because of a letter I wrote you last week complaining about misconduct by District Court Judges here in the Southern District, the purpose of that visit was to intimidate and harass me...
The notion that I pose some sort of physical threat to you or to the judiciary or to anyone else down here is a cruel joke. The two Marshals said, “If you had actually hand-delivered the letter to Judge Moreno, we would be concerned.” To that I said, “But I did. I did that last week because the gentlemen at the metal detectors would not deliver it, and THEY TOLD ME TO DELIVER IT TO YOU. I buzzed into your inner offices on the thirteenth floor, and I politely handed the letter to your clerk, who politely took it.
If I were a danger to anyone, that would have been the time for me to have proven it, right? In fact, I have never threatened anyone in my entire life, and you know that, and the Marshals said they knew that. They were apologetic about being dispatched to my home. This is outrageous, Judge. Simply outrageous.
5. Thompson then sent this letter to the House Judiciary Committee.
Is all this for real?
Thompson always manages to weave in to his letters and motions the current event of the day and then somehow make those events about him. He has material from the Supreme Court Guantanamo case, the Kozinski stuff, and other current events. Sorry for ruining the next half hour of your day as you go read this stuff. You won't be able to turn away....
New Courthouse
The DBR has some info on the new courthouse in today's paper. Here's the article.
Judge Martinez had this to say: "I was perfectly happy where I was. I don't like high-rise buildings. If it was up to me, it would have been an old-fashioned courthouse. But I'm not in charge of the world today."
If federal judges aren't in charge of the world, then who is in charge!?!
Judge Martinez had this to say: "I was perfectly happy where I was. I don't like high-rise buildings. If it was up to me, it would have been an old-fashioned courthouse. But I'm not in charge of the world today."
If federal judges aren't in charge of the world, then who is in charge!?!
Friday, June 13, 2008
Happy Birthday Judge P
We celebrated Judge Peter Palermo's 90th birthday at the new federal courthouse today. Yes, that's 90 years old. Chief Judge Moreno spoke as did Chief Magistrate Judge Bandstra. Lots of federal judges and lawyers were there to smile with Judge P, the very first magistrate in the United States(!!). I really think Judge Palermo must have had a sip from the Fountain of Youth -- the guy gets around better and is sharper than most people 30 years his junior. Here are some pics I took from the party.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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.
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.
Former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell
Fascinating article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell who is serving a 30 month sentence for tax evasion.
Apparently the Mayor tried to get out of prison early by faking an alcohol problem. In federal prison, you can be released early if you have a drug or alcohol problem (and otherwise qualify)and participate in an intensive rehab program. Campbell participated and was released early, but when the Atlanta prosecutors found out, they flipped and informed BOP that Campbell was making it all up. BOP yanked him back into custody.
Campbell filed suit in front of Judge Ursula Ungaro, but he then withdrew the suit. He's now back in...
Apparently the Mayor tried to get out of prison early by faking an alcohol problem. In federal prison, you can be released early if you have a drug or alcohol problem (and otherwise qualify)and participate in an intensive rehab program. Campbell participated and was released early, but when the Atlanta prosecutors found out, they flipped and informed BOP that Campbell was making it all up. BOP yanked him back into custody.
Campbell filed suit in front of Judge Ursula Ungaro, but he then withdrew the suit. He's now back in...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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.
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.
Correct result?
Sean Conway has agreed to settle his bar case for calling Judge Aleman on the Broward Blog an "evil, unfair witch" for a public reprimand, the Sun-Sentinel has reported here (hat tip Rumpole). When the case was first brought, Fred Haddad, Conway's lawyer, said "If the state court is not sensible enough to dismiss this piece of shit, it will end up in federal court."
And Fred is not happy that Conway settled: "Resolving the case was not my position, and it was not the position that I ever took," Haddad said Tuesday. "However, the lawyer does not make all the decisions." Haddad had said in December that Conway's blog posting was protected speech and that Bar rules restricting attorneys' criticism of judges was overly broad, vague and unconstitutional.
What say you dear readers? Is this the right result? A public reprimand for speaking your mind on a blog? I agree with Haddad on this issue, of course.
Also I reproduce here from the comments section of our last post:
Dear Former Students of Swan,
As a former student and long time friend of Alan Swan, I will be speaking at his memorial service on Saturday (Plymouth Congregational Church in the Grove, 11:30). If you have a good Professor Swan story, I would love to hear from you today or tomorrow. Please feel free to respond to mbarzee@jud11.flcourts.org.
Thank you.
Mary Barzee Flores
And Fred is not happy that Conway settled: "Resolving the case was not my position, and it was not the position that I ever took," Haddad said Tuesday. "However, the lawyer does not make all the decisions." Haddad had said in December that Conway's blog posting was protected speech and that Bar rules restricting attorneys' criticism of judges was overly broad, vague and unconstitutional.
What say you dear readers? Is this the right result? A public reprimand for speaking your mind on a blog? I agree with Haddad on this issue, of course.
Also I reproduce here from the comments section of our last post:
Dear Former Students of Swan,
As a former student and long time friend of Alan Swan, I will be speaking at his memorial service on Saturday (Plymouth Congregational Church in the Grove, 11:30). If you have a good Professor Swan story, I would love to hear from you today or tomorrow. Please feel free to respond to mbarzee@jud11.flcourts.org.
Thank you.
Mary Barzee Flores
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Plug
So, usually I don't blog about my cases, but I am making an exception here because the case is going to the Southern District of New York and because it got some press on the excellent White Collar Crime Blog here:
With unemployment high, with people desperate for jobs, we may be seeing more instances of alleged puffing or fraud in the job search process. But one doesn't expect the government to be spending its time prosecuting individuals based upon alleged fraud in the job search.
But Martha Graybow, Reuters, U.S. Businessman Accused of Fraud in Job Search reports otherwise. And to make matters even worse, the government wanted the job seeker detained. The magistrate judge in Miami responded with a $25,000 bond, which the government then sought to stay. And when that was denied, the government headed to New York to secure a stay. Again a denial for the government.
With unemployment high, with people desperate for jobs, we may be seeing more instances of alleged puffing or fraud in the job search process. But one doesn't expect the government to be spending its time prosecuting individuals based upon alleged fraud in the job search.
But Martha Graybow, Reuters, U.S. Businessman Accused of Fraud in Job Search reports otherwise. And to make matters even worse, the government wanted the job seeker detained. The magistrate judge in Miami responded with a $25,000 bond, which the government then sought to stay. And when that was denied, the government headed to New York to secure a stay. Again a denial for the government.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Devil's Advocate
One of my favorite tipster's pointed out this listing in the Florida Bar News Classified section on Friday:
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE - Every lawyer needs another lawyer to bounce ideas off of, and even to be a devil’s advocate, challenging your ideas even more thoroughly and incisively than your opposing lawyer would. If you welcome robust, well-grounded debate as the best way to make your arguments razor-sharp, then call me. George Zadorozny, Attorney-at-Law, Florida Bar ’82, Carlton Fields ’82-’86, J.D. Northwestern ’82, B.A. Yale ’78. $100 per hour. Legal research and writing (pleadings, motions, memoranda, appeals) also available. (727) 389-5973; gzesq@aya.yale.edu. AV rated. Office: New Port Richey, Florida.
Yes, I've been hired by some lawyers in response to my "Devil's Advocate" ad.
Do you enjoy your work?
I enjoy my work very much--see the second paragraph of the above answer to your first question.
DEVIL’S ADVOCATE - Every lawyer needs another lawyer to bounce ideas off of, and even to be a devil’s advocate, challenging your ideas even more thoroughly and incisively than your opposing lawyer would. If you welcome robust, well-grounded debate as the best way to make your arguments razor-sharp, then call me. George Zadorozny, Attorney-at-Law, Florida Bar ’82, Carlton Fields ’82-’86, J.D. Northwestern ’82, B.A. Yale ’78. $100 per hour. Legal research and writing (pleadings, motions, memoranda, appeals) also available. (727) 389-5973; gzesq@aya.yale.edu. AV rated. Office: New Port Richey, Florida.
I shot the Devil's Advocate an email with a couple of questions and got the following responses.
What gave you the idea for being a Devilʼs Advocate?
As to how I got the idea for my "Devil's Advocate" ad: It came to me a few months ago. For over 20 years now I've been doing contract work for lawyers, doing legal research and writing. Naturally we discuss these projects over the phone. Sometimes in these conversations the lawyer I'm working for advances an idea or an angle or a theory that strikes me as promising but vulnerable--and so I point that out, that is, I point out how the other side could attack us through what looks to me like a weak spot. We usually go on to debate the point vigorously until we're satisfied that we've cast out the vulnerabilities.
Because these debates are conducted in a spirit of mutual respect, with both of us aiming at the same goal--making the arguments for the client as strong and sharp and unbeatable as possible--we find them not draining at all, but invigorating and cheering.
I've been doing this for many, many years now, and I knew that I was playing devil's advocate, but it wasn't until a few months ago that I suddenly realized that it would be a good thing for me to tell prospective lawyers that that is something that I can offer them--much more than just legal research and writing per se. Of course I still do that too. It all depends on what the lawyer I'm working for wants. Unsurprisingly, lawyers who practice solo particularly value this opportunity for well-reasoned strengthening of their arguments through debate.
Has anyone hired you?Yes, I've been hired by some lawyers in response to my "Devil's Advocate" ad.
Do you enjoy your work?
I enjoy my work very much--see the second paragraph of the above answer to your first question.
Friday, June 06, 2008
News and Notes
1. Ken Jenne's days in prison. (via Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinel). From Dan Christensen: Once Broward's most powerful politician, ex-Sheriff Ken Jenne now spends his days raising vegetables in the garden of a federal prison camp in rural Virginia.
Jenne, convicted of corruption last fall, talked briefly about his new duties in a three-hour deposition taken six weeks ago in a federal civil rights lawsuit in which he's a defendant.
...''I work in what is called the garden planting various vegetables,'' Jenne, 61, told Fort Lauderdale lawyer Barbara Heyer.
2. Prosecutors object to Joe Cool polygraph. (via Sun-Sentinel):
Federal prosecutors are fighting to make sure jurors never hear that one of the suspects in the murders of four people at sea passed two lie detector tests saying he did not take part in killing any of the crew members on the Joe Cool.Guillermo Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark., who were passengers on the boat's ill-fated charter voyage in September, are charged with four counts of first degree murder and could face the death penalty. Their trial is expected to begin this fall.Zarabozo's lawyers say his favorable polygraph results should be allowed as evidence because they corroborate Zarabozo's version of events--that he was lured onto the boat under false pretenses by Archer and did not know anything illegal was going to happen until Archer fired the fatal shots.At a hearing in Miami federal court Wednesday, prosecutor Karen Gilbert said the polygraph evidence should not be allowed because it is not reliable and could have too much influence on jurors.
U.S. District Judge Paul Huck said he would rule after government officials conduct a separate polygraph exam of Zarabozo--a procedure defense lawyers said they welcomed.
Jenne, convicted of corruption last fall, talked briefly about his new duties in a three-hour deposition taken six weeks ago in a federal civil rights lawsuit in which he's a defendant.
...''I work in what is called the garden planting various vegetables,'' Jenne, 61, told Fort Lauderdale lawyer Barbara Heyer.
2. Prosecutors object to Joe Cool polygraph. (via Sun-Sentinel):
Federal prosecutors are fighting to make sure jurors never hear that one of the suspects in the murders of four people at sea passed two lie detector tests saying he did not take part in killing any of the crew members on the Joe Cool.Guillermo Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark., who were passengers on the boat's ill-fated charter voyage in September, are charged with four counts of first degree murder and could face the death penalty. Their trial is expected to begin this fall.Zarabozo's lawyers say his favorable polygraph results should be allowed as evidence because they corroborate Zarabozo's version of events--that he was lured onto the boat under false pretenses by Archer and did not know anything illegal was going to happen until Archer fired the fatal shots.At a hearing in Miami federal court Wednesday, prosecutor Karen Gilbert said the polygraph evidence should not be allowed because it is not reliable and could have too much influence on jurors.
U.S. District Judge Paul Huck said he would rule after government officials conduct a separate polygraph exam of Zarabozo--a procedure defense lawyers said they welcomed.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Cuban Spy decision from 11th...
... is here.
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it's a 1-1-1 opinion. Pryor writes opinion affirming convictions and vacating sentences for 3 defendants. Birch concurs, but states that case should go to Supreme Court on venue issue and that murder issue is very close. Kravitch dissents on whether evidence was sufficient on the murder conviction.
I have a funny feeling this case isn't over...
Haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it's a 1-1-1 opinion. Pryor writes opinion affirming convictions and vacating sentences for 3 defendants. Birch concurs, but states that case should go to Supreme Court on venue issue and that murder issue is very close. Kravitch dissents on whether evidence was sufficient on the murder conviction.
I have a funny feeling this case isn't over...
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Katherine Harris upset by Laura Dern's portrayal
After my post about the HBO movie Recount yesterday, I received an email from Suzanne Schmidt, Joe Klock's PR person, informing me that he and Katherine Harris would be on Hannity & Colmes to "discuss[] how Harris was unfairly portrayed in the film and how the film could be nothing further from the truth." Harris and Klock do a nice job on the show (see above for a short clip), but....
I'm still ready to give Laura Dern an Oscar...
More trouble for Kuehne prosecution and other lawyer news
In what already looks like a doomed prosecution against attorney Ben Kuehne, it just got tougher. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Cuellar v. United States, which holds (9-0 per Thomas) that the federal money-laundering statue did not require proof of “appearance of legitimate wealth” and the statute could not be satisfied solely by evidence that a defendant concealed funds during transportation. The Kuehne team will be pouring over every word of the opinion, I'm sure...
In other lawyer news, Goeffrey Fieger was acquitted yesteday. His lawyer, Gerry Spence, remains undefeated! Fieger had this to say (apropos of the above case): "I'm very pleased with the American system and the jury. I thank the jury for listening. I hope this puts an end to political prosecutions in the age of Mr. Bush."
And finally, attorney Mel Weiss was sentenced to 30 months (3 months below the advisory guideline range agreed on by the parties).
In other lawyer news, Goeffrey Fieger was acquitted yesteday. His lawyer, Gerry Spence, remains undefeated! Fieger had this to say (apropos of the above case): "I'm very pleased with the American system and the jury. I thank the jury for listening. I hope this puts an end to political prosecutions in the age of Mr. Bush."
And finally, attorney Mel Weiss was sentenced to 30 months (3 months below the advisory guideline range agreed on by the parties).
Monday, June 02, 2008
Recount
So I finally got around to the HBO movie Recount on my TiVo. I really enjoyed it. It threw me back to those days in 2000 when I was attached to the TV watching the twists and turns of the bitter election fight between Bush and Gore. I actually had dreams (nightmares) last night after watching the film...
There were lots of SDFLA references of course, since we were ground zero.
A guy named Phillip Nolen played Ben Kuehne, but he didn't wear the bowtie! Bruce Altman played Mitchell Berger. Laura Dern was an excellent Katherine Harris. The other main players were also very well cast. I may be mistaken but I thought I saw Kendall Coffee sitting as an extra in the Supreme Court scene at the end...
Anyway, if you want to relive some of those moments, it's well worth it.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Judge Highsmith to retire at the end of the year
We also send our condolences to friend of blog, Dore Louis, for the passing of his father Paul Louis. Like Dore, Paul was quite a character and quite a lawyer. Here is the beautiful article from the Miami Herald. The intro:
He was a dogged attorney, whose representation of a young black man convicted of murder by an all white jury led to a landmark 1984 ruling by the Florida Supreme Court.
He kept a cane in his downtown Miami office, not because he needed it to walk. He swung it in the air or banged it on the table to make his point.
Even when his clients couldn't pay their legal bill, Paul A. Louis stuck by them.
''He wouldn't give up when he got into a case,'' said Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Paul Siegel, who worked with him in private practice for more than 25 years. ``The law firm might not get paid, but he kept on it.''
Louis, whose legal career spanned nearly six decades, died Saturday at age 85.
Only a battle with throat and liver cancer could sideline Louis. Even as his health deteriorated, he checked in on cases.
''Literally after his voice was gone he was mouthing the names of clients that the firm still had and asking about the status of the cases wanting to be kept up-to-date to offer yes or no opinions on how to proceed,'' said his son, Marshall Dore Louis. ``His loyalty was just tremendous.''
He kept a cane in his downtown Miami office, not because he needed it to walk. He swung it in the air or banged it on the table to make his point.
Even when his clients couldn't pay their legal bill, Paul A. Louis stuck by them.
''He wouldn't give up when he got into a case,'' said Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Paul Siegel, who worked with him in private practice for more than 25 years. ``The law firm might not get paid, but he kept on it.''
Louis, whose legal career spanned nearly six decades, died Saturday at age 85.
Only a battle with throat and liver cancer could sideline Louis. Even as his health deteriorated, he checked in on cases.
''Literally after his voice was gone he was mouthing the names of clients that the firm still had and asking about the status of the cases wanting to be kept up-to-date to offer yes or no opinions on how to proceed,'' said his son, Marshall Dore Louis. ``His loyalty was just tremendous.''
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I'm back!
I admit it -- I was on vacation and just got back late last night... That's the reason for the slow blogging. I'm catching up on mail, DBRs, email, and so on. Ahhh, the joy of returning to work. Just a quick skim of the inbox shows that there are some really interesting things going on -- John Pacenti had a great article in yesterday's DBR about attorney's fees in criminal cases, and in today's DBR, Billy Shields discusses how the Justice Building Blog broke a fascinating story about the removal of a state prosecutor from a homicide investigation. Will have more soon.... In the meantime, send me an email if you know of something interesting happening in the new federal courthouse!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
NYT: should we elect or appoint our judges?
The New York Times had an interesting piece this weekend concerning an issue we've discussed on this Blog before -- whether judges should be elected or appointed.
Adam Liptak's article contains pretty good arguments as to why judges should be appointed, which is our position as well.
Check it out here: http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=168619&f=21&single=1
And let us know your thoughts.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
News & Notes
1. "Sport fishing 'shtick' nets probation term for charter boat operator" via Vanessa Blum. If you can't get enough Tom Watts-Fitzgerald, check out this article:
Rejecting a call for harsher punishment, a federal judge on Thursday ordered the owner of a South Florida charter fishing business to serve five years' probation for not reporting sailfish reeled in by customers and killing undersized fish.Stanley Saffan, 58, of Miami Beach, who pleaded guilty to those charges in February, must also pay $210,000 in financial penalties, forfeit one of his Therapy IV boats to the federal government and perform 500 hours of community service work.A crowd of relatives and supporters who turned out for Saffan's two-day hearing showed relief at the sentence, which was well below the 18 to 24 months' prison term sought by federal prosecutors.U.S. District Judge William Zloch barred Saffan, who runs sport fishing charters out of Baker's Haulover Inlet in North Miami Beach, from serving as captain of a vessel during his probation
2. "Gun box allowed as evidence in ghost ship case" via Jay Weaver. Judge Huck rejected the defense's motion to suppress:
An empty gun lockbox -- considered vital evidence in the case of four Miami Beach charter boat members slain at sea -- will be allowed at the trial of two men charged with their murders, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Paul Huck rejected an attempt by attorneys for defendant Guillermo Zarabozo to suppress evidence gathered by FBI agents at his mother's home -- including the lockbox that may have contained the suspected 9mm handgun used in last fall's killings.
''The point here is not that they found a firearm in a lockbox,'' Huck said. ``It's that they found no firearm in the lockbox.''
Rejecting a call for harsher punishment, a federal judge on Thursday ordered the owner of a South Florida charter fishing business to serve five years' probation for not reporting sailfish reeled in by customers and killing undersized fish.Stanley Saffan, 58, of Miami Beach, who pleaded guilty to those charges in February, must also pay $210,000 in financial penalties, forfeit one of his Therapy IV boats to the federal government and perform 500 hours of community service work.A crowd of relatives and supporters who turned out for Saffan's two-day hearing showed relief at the sentence, which was well below the 18 to 24 months' prison term sought by federal prosecutors.U.S. District Judge William Zloch barred Saffan, who runs sport fishing charters out of Baker's Haulover Inlet in North Miami Beach, from serving as captain of a vessel during his probation
2. "Gun box allowed as evidence in ghost ship case" via Jay Weaver. Judge Huck rejected the defense's motion to suppress:
An empty gun lockbox -- considered vital evidence in the case of four Miami Beach charter boat members slain at sea -- will be allowed at the trial of two men charged with their murders, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Paul Huck rejected an attempt by attorneys for defendant Guillermo Zarabozo to suppress evidence gathered by FBI agents at his mother's home -- including the lockbox that may have contained the suspected 9mm handgun used in last fall's killings.
''The point here is not that they found a firearm in a lockbox,'' Huck said. ``It's that they found no firearm in the lockbox.''
DNC lawsuit
From the Miami Herald:
Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.
The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates as punishment for violating party rules by holding its primary too early.
The civil-rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.
''This is not about the Hillary Clinton campaign; this is not about the Barack Obama campaign. This is not even about the Florida Democratic Party. This is about democracy and how we value our votes,'' said Barbara Effman, president of the West Broward Democratic Club and a Clinton delegate. Effman joined Geller, an uncommitted superdelegate, and Percy Johnson, an Obama delegate, in the lawsuit.
Here's the lawsuit, filed by Ben Kuehne and Richard Epstein, which was assigned to Judge Marra.
Florida's history of discrimination against African Americans should force the national Democratic Party to count all of the state's delegates at its national convention, a federal lawsuit filed Thursday claims.
The suit, filed by state Senate Democratic Leader Steve Geller and two other Democrats, claims that the federal Voting Rights Act prohibits the national party from stripping the state of its convention delegates as punishment for violating party rules by holding its primary too early.
The civil-rights-era law requires the U.S. Justice Department to approve any significant voting change in Florida to make sure it doesn't disenfranchise minority voters. Geller argues that includes the Democratic National Committee's demand that Florida switch ''from a state-run primary to party-run caucus system'' to avoid losing its delegates.
''This is not about the Hillary Clinton campaign; this is not about the Barack Obama campaign. This is not even about the Florida Democratic Party. This is about democracy and how we value our votes,'' said Barbara Effman, president of the West Broward Democratic Club and a Clinton delegate. Effman joined Geller, an uncommitted superdelegate, and Percy Johnson, an Obama delegate, in the lawsuit.
Here's the lawsuit, filed by Ben Kuehne and Richard Epstein, which was assigned to Judge Marra.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Liberty City 6 on the web
Just got an email about MobLogic.Tv which has this video about the Liberty City 6 and this post titled, "Thought Police":
News & Notes
1. "Former Miami-Dade teacher gets 7 years for enslaving Haitian girl" via the Sun-Sentinel. From the intro of Vanessa Blum's article:
A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a South Florida woman to seven years and three months in prison for keeping a teenage girl from Haiti in servitude for six years.Maude Paulin, 52, a former Miami-Dade County middle school teacher, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work and harboring an illegal immigrant.Before being sentenced, Paulin apologized to U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr., saying she had good intentions when she arranged to bring Simone Celestin from Haiti to live with her family."I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin said. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done."
2. "26 charged in migrant smuggling crackdown" via the Miami Herald. Jay Weaver reports:
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged 26 South Florida suspects with conspiring to smuggle Cuban migrants in yet another major crackdown on illegal crossings of the Florida Straits.
In the latest 12 indictments, the defendants are accused of trying to bring 225 migrants to South Florida.
Prosecutors also charged two other suspects, Yamil Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 34, and Roberto Boffil-Rivera, 35, with alien smuggling, unlawful possession of a firearm and lying to a federal agent.
After the five Cuban migrants reached U.S. shores on April 21, Rodriguez demanded $25,000 payment, prosecutors said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Miami-Dade police detectives recorded two meetings between one migrant and Rodriguez, investigators said. On May 1, he paid Rodriguez $2,000. Six days later, he paid him an additional $3,000.
But Rodriguez was unsatisfied and threatened to shoot the migrant, police said. Rodriguez and Rivera were later arrested. Investigators found a loaded KAHR PM-40 firearm in one of the suspect's cars and pictures of Rivera holding the weapon.
3. Rumpole reports on trying to navigate state court:
We recently received an email from a prominent federal defense attorney who noted his/her travails on a recent Monday morning outing to our humble building. There was no place to park and after a half an hour of circling they parked in the median on a grass strip several blocks away.They got to the courtroom only to be told the prosecutor they had a meeting with had decided not to show up for work that day.A quick trip to the restroom (a clear rookie mistake) produced a few untimely steps in human liquid waste that was on the floor.And finally, beaten down by the heat, the lines, the smelly and dirty bathrooms not to mention the ridiculous belief that the prosecutor who agreed to meet them in court had any intention of actually showing up, they trudged back to their car, tie askew, bathed in sweat, actually longing for Judge Dimeitrouleas’s rocket docket, or for a quick arraignment and trial before Judge Huck, or a nice friendly sentencing before Judge Zlock.
4. "South Florida law firms hit by real estate slump, shed workers" via National Law Journal." Julie Kay explains:
In another sign of the hard times facing the legal industry, particularly in real-estate heavy South Florida, two local law firms — Holland & Knight and Shutts & Bowen — have laid off non-lawyer staffers. On a day that could be dubbed Black Friday in South Florida legal circles, Tampa-based Holland & Knight, one of Florida's largest and most venerable firms with 1,150 lawyers, laid off 70 staffers Friday, including legal secretaries, IT and accounting staff. No lawyers were laid off. The layoffs of about four employees in each of Holland's 17 offices represented 5% of Holland's non-lawyer workforce. Shutts & Bowen, a 200-lawyer, Miami-based firm, Friday laid off nine people, all entry level file clerks or paralegal clerks. No lawyers or legal secretaries were affected. The news comes on the heels of a decision announced internally Friday by Fort Lauderdale-based Becker & Poliakoff to temporarily and immediately chop all lawyer salaries by 12%. The firm, which is heavy in condo and real estate representation, said it was forced to take the action since clients are delaying payment in this lean economic environment.
A federal judge on Tuesday sentenced a South Florida woman to seven years and three months in prison for keeping a teenage girl from Haiti in servitude for six years.Maude Paulin, 52, a former Miami-Dade County middle school teacher, was convicted in March along with her mother, Evelyn Theodore, of conspiring to enslave the girl, forcing her to work and harboring an illegal immigrant.Before being sentenced, Paulin apologized to U.S. District Judge Jose Gonzalez Jr., saying she had good intentions when she arranged to bring Simone Celestin from Haiti to live with her family."I love Simone with all my heart," Paulin said. "Unfortunately, I can't change what is already done."
2. "26 charged in migrant smuggling crackdown" via the Miami Herald. Jay Weaver reports:
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged 26 South Florida suspects with conspiring to smuggle Cuban migrants in yet another major crackdown on illegal crossings of the Florida Straits.
In the latest 12 indictments, the defendants are accused of trying to bring 225 migrants to South Florida.
Prosecutors also charged two other suspects, Yamil Gonzalez-Rodriguez, 34, and Roberto Boffil-Rivera, 35, with alien smuggling, unlawful possession of a firearm and lying to a federal agent.
After the five Cuban migrants reached U.S. shores on April 21, Rodriguez demanded $25,000 payment, prosecutors said.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and Miami-Dade police detectives recorded two meetings between one migrant and Rodriguez, investigators said. On May 1, he paid Rodriguez $2,000. Six days later, he paid him an additional $3,000.
But Rodriguez was unsatisfied and threatened to shoot the migrant, police said. Rodriguez and Rivera were later arrested. Investigators found a loaded KAHR PM-40 firearm in one of the suspect's cars and pictures of Rivera holding the weapon.
3. Rumpole reports on trying to navigate state court:
We recently received an email from a prominent federal defense attorney who noted his/her travails on a recent Monday morning outing to our humble building. There was no place to park and after a half an hour of circling they parked in the median on a grass strip several blocks away.They got to the courtroom only to be told the prosecutor they had a meeting with had decided not to show up for work that day.A quick trip to the restroom (a clear rookie mistake) produced a few untimely steps in human liquid waste that was on the floor.And finally, beaten down by the heat, the lines, the smelly and dirty bathrooms not to mention the ridiculous belief that the prosecutor who agreed to meet them in court had any intention of actually showing up, they trudged back to their car, tie askew, bathed in sweat, actually longing for Judge Dimeitrouleas’s rocket docket, or for a quick arraignment and trial before Judge Huck, or a nice friendly sentencing before Judge Zlock.
4. "South Florida law firms hit by real estate slump, shed workers" via National Law Journal." Julie Kay explains:
In another sign of the hard times facing the legal industry, particularly in real-estate heavy South Florida, two local law firms — Holland & Knight and Shutts & Bowen — have laid off non-lawyer staffers. On a day that could be dubbed Black Friday in South Florida legal circles, Tampa-based Holland & Knight, one of Florida's largest and most venerable firms with 1,150 lawyers, laid off 70 staffers Friday, including legal secretaries, IT and accounting staff. No lawyers were laid off. The layoffs of about four employees in each of Holland's 17 offices represented 5% of Holland's non-lawyer workforce. Shutts & Bowen, a 200-lawyer, Miami-based firm, Friday laid off nine people, all entry level file clerks or paralegal clerks. No lawyers or legal secretaries were affected. The news comes on the heels of a decision announced internally Friday by Fort Lauderdale-based Becker & Poliakoff to temporarily and immediately chop all lawyer salaries by 12%. The firm, which is heavy in condo and real estate representation, said it was forced to take the action since clients are delaying payment in this lean economic environment.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Supreme Court decides US v. Williams
You all remember this case -- the child pornography case that our own Rick Diaz and Lou Guerra argued before the High Court.
The Court ruled 7-2 against Diaz's client.
Here's a summary from SCOTUSBlog:
In a second major ruling, the Court — after years of repeatedly nullifying Congress’ efforts to stamp out child pornography on the Internet — finally upheld such a law, a 2003 statute that Congress shaped in a way that it hopes would spare it from the same fate as earlier attempts. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court found that the 2003 law did not reach too far and that it was not vague in its scope. The decision came on a 7-2 vote in United States v. Williams (06-694).
Here is Justice Scalia's opinion.
The Court ruled 7-2 against Diaz's client.
Here's a summary from SCOTUSBlog:
In a second major ruling, the Court — after years of repeatedly nullifying Congress’ efforts to stamp out child pornography on the Internet — finally upheld such a law, a 2003 statute that Congress shaped in a way that it hopes would spare it from the same fate as earlier attempts. In an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court found that the 2003 law did not reach too far and that it was not vague in its scope. The decision came on a 7-2 vote in United States v. Williams (06-694).
Here is Justice Scalia's opinion.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Ben Kuehne receives award
The Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers-Miami Chapter had its annual banquet Saturday night. Of note for this blog, Ben Kuehne received the lifetime achievement award (which the group decided to give him after he was charged, not before as was reported in the NLJ and WSJ blog -- I know this because I was at the meeting where we unanimously agreed on the award). Ben spoke eloquently after he was introduced by Hank Coxe, former president of the Florida Bar.
The Jose Padilla defense team was also given awards. They were introduced by Kathy Williams, who gave a wonderful and fiery talk. Michael Caruso's speech was well done; he spoke about how important it was to have an independent judiciary and he applauded Judge Cooke for upholding her role in this respect.
On the state side, Steve Leifman received the judicial distinction award. He does such good and important work for the mentally ill. His award was well-deserving.
In addition to the awards, it's always fun to people watch at these things.... All in all, a fun night.
UPDATE -- apparently the WSJ blogger was there.
The Jose Padilla defense team was also given awards. They were introduced by Kathy Williams, who gave a wonderful and fiery talk. Michael Caruso's speech was well done; he spoke about how important it was to have an independent judiciary and he applauded Judge Cooke for upholding her role in this respect.
On the state side, Steve Leifman received the judicial distinction award. He does such good and important work for the mentally ill. His award was well-deserving.
In addition to the awards, it's always fun to people watch at these things.... All in all, a fun night.
UPDATE -- apparently the WSJ blogger was there.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Is 23 years an appropriate sentence for a business opporunity fraud case?
That's the question posed by Vanessa Blum in this Sun-Sentinel article:
"A once in a lifetime opportunity." "A part time business that earns a full time income." "Call now!" "Don't miss out!"The late night television ads for the Box Office Express DVD rental machine peddled a dream. But it didn't take long for customers of the Hollywood firm to realize they'd been sold an empty promise.In some cases the machines never came. Sometimes they arrived but didn't work properly. Those that functioned would never yield impressive profits.Today federal prosecutors are asking a Miami federal judge to sentence the founder of American Entertainment Distributors Inc. to 23 years in prison for conspiracy, fraud and violating a court order banning him from selling business opportunities. Russell MacArthur, 43, pleaded guilty to those charges in February.
Prosecutors contended the false statements and inflated profit forecasts MacArthur, used to sell the DVD vending machines at American Entertainment amounted to a massive fraud that cost 400 investors a total of nearly $20 million. His plan all along, according to prosecutors, was to make as much money as possible and then declare bankruptcy and fold.It's an area where federal authorities in South Florida have been cracking down. A string of recent cases targeting so-called "business opportunity fraud" have involved the sale of debit card dispensers, Internet kiosks, payphones and anti-aging devices.So far, 14 individuals affiliated with American Entertainment have been convicted, not including MacArthur's partner, Anthony "Rocco" Andreoni, who died in March just hours before he was set to plead guilty.The defendants had worked for at least 16 other business ventures in which most customers lost almost all their investment, prosecutors alleged.In a recent court filing, MacArthur's attorney, Frank Rubino, asserted that prosecutors have exaggerated financial losses tied to American Entertainment. Most customers received the DVD rental machines they paid for, if not the profits they expected, Rubino said.But prosecutor Patrick Jasperse of the Justice Department's consumer fraud section responded that the machines, which sold for $28,000 to $40,000, had no value because American Entertainment failed to provide locations for them and other services that were promised.
This afternoon, Judge Martinez sentenced MacArthur to 23 and 1/2 years.
UPDATED -- Here's the story of the sentencing by Blum. A couple of reasons for the lengthy sentence:
[Judge] Martinez said MacArthur deserved extra punishment for violating a court order banning him from selling business opportunities and for fleeing to Costa Rica after his indictment in 2005. He pleaded guilty in February.The judge called the DVD rental machine, which sold for $28,000 to $40,000, "a worthless piece of junk."
The defense lawyer responds:
Defense attorney Frank Rubino called the 23-year prison term "excessive" and a sentence more suitable for a drug lord or a terrorist."I'm not making light of this crime, but my god, 10, 12, 13 years is a long time," Rubino said.
The prosecutor:
But prosecutor Patrick Jasperse asked for harsh punishment, saying MacArthur was responsible for stealing the life savings and college funds of retirees and hardworking individuals."Russell MacArthur is a danger to the public," Jasperse said.
"A once in a lifetime opportunity." "A part time business that earns a full time income." "Call now!" "Don't miss out!"The late night television ads for the Box Office Express DVD rental machine peddled a dream. But it didn't take long for customers of the Hollywood firm to realize they'd been sold an empty promise.In some cases the machines never came. Sometimes they arrived but didn't work properly. Those that functioned would never yield impressive profits.Today federal prosecutors are asking a Miami federal judge to sentence the founder of American Entertainment Distributors Inc. to 23 years in prison for conspiracy, fraud and violating a court order banning him from selling business opportunities. Russell MacArthur, 43, pleaded guilty to those charges in February.
Prosecutors contended the false statements and inflated profit forecasts MacArthur, used to sell the DVD vending machines at American Entertainment amounted to a massive fraud that cost 400 investors a total of nearly $20 million. His plan all along, according to prosecutors, was to make as much money as possible and then declare bankruptcy and fold.It's an area where federal authorities in South Florida have been cracking down. A string of recent cases targeting so-called "business opportunity fraud" have involved the sale of debit card dispensers, Internet kiosks, payphones and anti-aging devices.So far, 14 individuals affiliated with American Entertainment have been convicted, not including MacArthur's partner, Anthony "Rocco" Andreoni, who died in March just hours before he was set to plead guilty.The defendants had worked for at least 16 other business ventures in which most customers lost almost all their investment, prosecutors alleged.In a recent court filing, MacArthur's attorney, Frank Rubino, asserted that prosecutors have exaggerated financial losses tied to American Entertainment. Most customers received the DVD rental machines they paid for, if not the profits they expected, Rubino said.But prosecutor Patrick Jasperse of the Justice Department's consumer fraud section responded that the machines, which sold for $28,000 to $40,000, had no value because American Entertainment failed to provide locations for them and other services that were promised.
This afternoon, Judge Martinez sentenced MacArthur to 23 and 1/2 years.
UPDATED -- Here's the story of the sentencing by Blum. A couple of reasons for the lengthy sentence:
[Judge] Martinez said MacArthur deserved extra punishment for violating a court order banning him from selling business opportunities and for fleeing to Costa Rica after his indictment in 2005. He pleaded guilty in February.The judge called the DVD rental machine, which sold for $28,000 to $40,000, "a worthless piece of junk."
The defense lawyer responds:
Defense attorney Frank Rubino called the 23-year prison term "excessive" and a sentence more suitable for a drug lord or a terrorist."I'm not making light of this crime, but my god, 10, 12, 13 years is a long time," Rubino said.
The prosecutor:
But prosecutor Patrick Jasperse asked for harsh punishment, saying MacArthur was responsible for stealing the life savings and college funds of retirees and hardworking individuals."Russell MacArthur is a danger to the public," Jasperse said.
Ben Kuehne to receive award from FACDL-Miami this weekend
Saturday night the Florida Association of Criminal Defense lawyer will be having its annual banquet. Ben Kuehne will be receiving the Daniel S. Pearson-Harry W. Prebish Founder's Award, FACDL's highest honor. The Jose Padilla defense team will be receiving the Rodney Thaxton "Against All Odds" award, and Judge Steve Leifman will receive the Gerald Kogan Judicial Distinction Award.
Julie Kay writes about it here.
Julie Kay writes about it here.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
"The beagle is basically a stomach on four feet."
Why does Tom Watts-Fitzgerald have to disrespect the beagle like that?
Okay, okay -- he was just explaining how the beagles find illegal cavier at the airport (via the Daily Business Review):
Watts-FitzGerald said in some ways the illegal caviar trade is just as dangerous as the illicit drug market. Since Russia began protecting sturgeon and limiting caviar exports, caviar fishermen from surrounding republics struck back. "They blew up the barracks of what was essentially the equivalent of the old KGB. They were trying to make a point," he said. "The M.O. is very similar [to the drug trade]. Illicit wildlife smuggling is an $8 (billion) to $10 billion business." Caviar smugglers use mules to hide shipments just like drug traffickers. In the 1990s, 500 grams of Beluga caviar was discovered at Miami International Airport in a carry-on bag by the Food and Drug Administration's version of drug-sniffing dogs: the beagle brigade. "The beagle is basically a stomach on four feet," Watts-FitzGerald said. "When he smelled the caviar, he just went crazy." Caviar smugglers sometimes simply re-use old paperwork from legitimate shipments to try to import illegal goods. But distributors have been charged millions of dollars in fines.
Here is what the case is about:
With a worldwide shortage of premium caviar due to a shrinking sturgeon population, some black market importers have turned to an American cousin: a prehistoric-looking river creature, the paddlefish.
Paddlefish roe has qualities similar to Russian caviar — arguably the finest in the world. But the fish also is protected in many U.S. states due to overfishing and habitat loss. Federal prosecutors charged a Plantation man and his company, Bemka House of Caviar, with flouting the strict permitting laws protecting the paddlefish by buying it illegally.
And the indictment (assigned to Chief Judge Moreno) is here.
You Tube dude sentenced to 6 1/2 years
You remember this crazy guy -- the one who taunted the cops on You Tube. "We's out here, we fighting a cold war," Rudy Villanueva said on the video. "Metro Dade Gang Unit, here I am baby." Judge Cooke sentenced him to 6 1/2 years over his objection that he was just messing around. Honestly, I just like posting the picture of the guy.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Judge Gold at the Fed Bar luncheon
Judge Gold spoke today at the Federal Bar Luncheon about ethics and used Mark Giminez's "The Color of Law" as the basis for the discussion. It was a very entertaining speech and it was well received. Judge Gold's premise: You can do good and do well as a lawyer. Those ideas are not mutually exclusive. Here are a couple of pictures from the event.
Should Judge Hoeveler recuse in the rock-mining case?
Judge Hoeveler says he doesn't "consider [himself] biased" in the rock-mining case in which he was just reversed. (Read the 2-1 opinion here). Although the 11th Circuit did not remove "the respected" Judge Hoeveler from the case, it did say that he had "predetermined" to ban the practice at issue. And as John Pacenti points out in his Daily Business Review article, the Judge has had his issues with environmental cases before.
So should he recuse? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt? The appellate court did not take Judge Hoeveler off the case, so unless he thinks he should recuse, he will continue to be the judge.
The Herald had on op-ed yesterday saying that Judge Hoeveler has the opportunity to strengthen his opinion:
In lifting an injunction banning three rock mining permits in Northwest Miami-Dade County and remanding the case back to U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler for reconsideration, an appellate panel left the door open for the judge to review and strengthen his decision. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Judge Hoeveler didn't show proper deference to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decisions to issue more rock-mining permits in a case pitting rock miners against environmental groups.
Here's the rest of the op-ed, which gets a couple facts wrong (including that it was a 3-2 decision instead of a 2-1 decision) but it provides an interesting argument nonetheless:
In July, Judge Hoeveler issued an injunction against permits requested by three of nine mining companies. The Corps hadn't given enough consideration to the proximity of mining activities to Miami-Dade's drinking-water wellfield, the judge said. He wanted a new environmental study, which the Corps agreed to conduct. But the miners appealed, and in doing so launched personal attacks against the judge, perhaps hoping that he would be removed from the case.
The 11th Circuit panel wisely kept Judge Hoeveler on the case. After reading the ruling, our advice to both sides: Don't pop the Champagne corks just yet. The 3-2 appellate-court majority said Judge Hoeveler appeared to have made up his mind, regardless of the evidence, in finding that rock mining in Miami-Dade's Lake Belt ''is a bad thing.'' The judges also said that he misread the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act and how the Corps interpreted it in permitting more mining in the Lake Belt. NEPA, said the panel, allows the Corps to determine that, even though an activity like mining may damage or even destroy an environment, economic value can outweigh environmental concerns.
That said, the appellate judges took pains to make it clear that Judge Hoeveler had not erred in his ruling. In fact, the panel's third judge, Phyllis Kravitch, dissented, writing that Judge Hoeveler's ban on mining in the Lake Belt to protect the water supply was justified under the Clean Water Act.
Which will it be, NEPA or the Clean Water Act? In addition to its concerns for wellfield protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had questions regarding the endangered wood stork during the permitting process. There were other issues about wetlands destruction, too. Ultimately, the Corps shortened the lifetime of the permits and required mitigation via wetlands acquisition by the miners.
Judge Hoeveler nevertheless found reason to want more information on what threat mining could pose for wellfield contamination. We don't find that unreasonable, nor for that matter, did the appellate panel. The appellate court said that Judge Hoeveler would have to find firmer ground upon which to uphold a ban on the three permits. That's fair to both sides.
Here's the original Herald article explaining the 11th Circuit's opinion in more detail.
So should he recuse? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt? The appellate court did not take Judge Hoeveler off the case, so unless he thinks he should recuse, he will continue to be the judge.
The Herald had on op-ed yesterday saying that Judge Hoeveler has the opportunity to strengthen his opinion:
In lifting an injunction banning three rock mining permits in Northwest Miami-Dade County and remanding the case back to U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler for reconsideration, an appellate panel left the door open for the judge to review and strengthen his decision. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Judge Hoeveler didn't show proper deference to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' decisions to issue more rock-mining permits in a case pitting rock miners against environmental groups.
Here's the rest of the op-ed, which gets a couple facts wrong (including that it was a 3-2 decision instead of a 2-1 decision) but it provides an interesting argument nonetheless:
In July, Judge Hoeveler issued an injunction against permits requested by three of nine mining companies. The Corps hadn't given enough consideration to the proximity of mining activities to Miami-Dade's drinking-water wellfield, the judge said. He wanted a new environmental study, which the Corps agreed to conduct. But the miners appealed, and in doing so launched personal attacks against the judge, perhaps hoping that he would be removed from the case.
The 11th Circuit panel wisely kept Judge Hoeveler on the case. After reading the ruling, our advice to both sides: Don't pop the Champagne corks just yet. The 3-2 appellate-court majority said Judge Hoeveler appeared to have made up his mind, regardless of the evidence, in finding that rock mining in Miami-Dade's Lake Belt ''is a bad thing.'' The judges also said that he misread the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act and how the Corps interpreted it in permitting more mining in the Lake Belt. NEPA, said the panel, allows the Corps to determine that, even though an activity like mining may damage or even destroy an environment, economic value can outweigh environmental concerns.
That said, the appellate judges took pains to make it clear that Judge Hoeveler had not erred in his ruling. In fact, the panel's third judge, Phyllis Kravitch, dissented, writing that Judge Hoeveler's ban on mining in the Lake Belt to protect the water supply was justified under the Clean Water Act.
Which will it be, NEPA or the Clean Water Act? In addition to its concerns for wellfield protection, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had questions regarding the endangered wood stork during the permitting process. There were other issues about wetlands destruction, too. Ultimately, the Corps shortened the lifetime of the permits and required mitigation via wetlands acquisition by the miners.
Judge Hoeveler nevertheless found reason to want more information on what threat mining could pose for wellfield contamination. We don't find that unreasonable, nor for that matter, did the appellate panel. The appellate court said that Judge Hoeveler would have to find firmer ground upon which to uphold a ban on the three permits. That's fair to both sides.
Here's the original Herald article explaining the 11th Circuit's opinion in more detail.
Monday, May 12, 2008
New Building
STOP THE PRESSES! There have been court proceedings in the new building. Some of the judges have moved in, others are moving this week, and the most junior judges.... well.... it's still going to be a while. But progress is progress. Here's a picture of the inside.
So, who's going to have the first trial?
And a reminder: Judge Gold will be speaking this Wednesday at the Federal Bar Association luncheon at the Banker's Club at noon. RSVP to Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Uma
I'm always fascinated by reports on deliberations. In the recent high-profile trial of the Uma Thurman stalker, a Wall Street Journal reporter was on the jury. Here is her description of the trial and deliberations.
In local news, Jose Padilla co-defendant isn't happy with the jail he's been assigned to. From Curt Anderson's article:
A man convicted along with one-time "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla of supporting al-Qaida wants a federal judge to block the government from sending him to a prison unit where his telephone calls, mail and visitors would be closely monitored.
A lawyer for Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 46, claims that the Communications Management Unit at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" and that his inclusion in that unit is discriminatory because it is based partly on his Muslim faith and Arab ethnicity.
Jayyousi is "due to be transferred at any time to this unlawful place of confinement, where he will suffer irreparable harm," attorney William Swor said in court documents filed this week.
Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley said Thursday that Jayyousi's religion or ethnicity have nothing to do with the designation at the unit that currently houses 46 inmates. Having all the inmates in one unit ensures that no communication is slipped out by a prisoner not subject to the restrictions.
"They are placed in the unit because their communications need to be closely monitored," Billingsley said.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who presided over the trial last year of Padilla, Jayyousi and Adham Amin Hassoun, issued an order Tuesday temporarily preventing the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from transferring Jayyousi from Miami. Cooke scheduled a hearing May 22 on the matter.
In local news, Jose Padilla co-defendant isn't happy with the jail he's been assigned to. From Curt Anderson's article:
A man convicted along with one-time "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla of supporting al-Qaida wants a federal judge to block the government from sending him to a prison unit where his telephone calls, mail and visitors would be closely monitored.
A lawyer for Kifah Wael Jayyousi, 46, claims that the Communications Management Unit at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" and that his inclusion in that unit is discriminatory because it is based partly on his Muslim faith and Arab ethnicity.
Jayyousi is "due to be transferred at any time to this unlawful place of confinement, where he will suffer irreparable harm," attorney William Swor said in court documents filed this week.
Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley said Thursday that Jayyousi's religion or ethnicity have nothing to do with the designation at the unit that currently houses 46 inmates. Having all the inmates in one unit ensures that no communication is slipped out by a prisoner not subject to the restrictions.
"They are placed in the unit because their communications need to be closely monitored," Billingsley said.
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, who presided over the trial last year of Padilla, Jayyousi and Adham Amin Hassoun, issued an order Tuesday temporarily preventing the U.S. Bureau of Prisons from transferring Jayyousi from Miami. Cooke scheduled a hearing May 22 on the matter.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
"If there is a verdict for her and she is ordered to be released, how can the verdict be changed so suddenly!!!!!!!!!"
That was the defendant's mom after Judge Cohn sentenced Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan to 29 months a week after sentencing her to credit time served. I've tried not to blog about the case because I was involved for a brief time early on in the litigation. Here is the intro from Vanessa Blum's article:
Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, an Iranian woman accused of trying to export night vision goggles, thought her guilty plea last month would be her ticket back to her family.The federal prosecutor had recommended a term of time served for the 30-year-old mother's role in the illegal plot to trade with Iran, a U.S.-designated terrorist nation. U.S. District Judge James Cohn imposed the sentence at an April 25 hearing in Fort Lauderdale federal court.But on Tuesday that smooth resolution unraveled. Determining the sentence had been a mistake, Cohn extended Gholikhan's prison term from time served to two years and five months.Under the law, federal judges can amend sentences within seven business days that result from "arithmetic, technical, or other clear error."
Gholikhan's lawyer Bill Barzee had this to say:
William Barzee, Gholikhan's attorney, called the resentencing unfair and un-American, saying after the hearing that his client feels like she's back in Iran."I don't think it's fair to [agree on a sentence] and have someone plead guilty and then come back and ask the court for a do-over," Barzee said in court Tuesday.
And a sentencing professor commented:
Jonathan Rosenthal, a Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer who teaches sentencing at Nova Southeastern University, said he found a description of Gholikhan's resentencing "troubling" because the guidelines are only one factor judges should consider."I don't understand how on Monday a sentence of four-and-a-half months is reasonable, but on Tuesday, all of a sudden, that sentence is no longer reasonable," Rosenthal said. "Judges are not supposed to give guidelines any undue weight."
It's a valid point. If a sentence of credit time served is reasonable, how can a sentence of 29 months be reasonable the next day -- especially when the prosecutor had agreed to credit time served. If the situation was reversed -- and the defendant didn't like her sentence -- would a judge allow her to come back to court?
Shahrazad Mir Gholikhan, an Iranian woman accused of trying to export night vision goggles, thought her guilty plea last month would be her ticket back to her family.The federal prosecutor had recommended a term of time served for the 30-year-old mother's role in the illegal plot to trade with Iran, a U.S.-designated terrorist nation. U.S. District Judge James Cohn imposed the sentence at an April 25 hearing in Fort Lauderdale federal court.But on Tuesday that smooth resolution unraveled. Determining the sentence had been a mistake, Cohn extended Gholikhan's prison term from time served to two years and five months.Under the law, federal judges can amend sentences within seven business days that result from "arithmetic, technical, or other clear error."
Gholikhan's lawyer Bill Barzee had this to say:
William Barzee, Gholikhan's attorney, called the resentencing unfair and un-American, saying after the hearing that his client feels like she's back in Iran."I don't think it's fair to [agree on a sentence] and have someone plead guilty and then come back and ask the court for a do-over," Barzee said in court Tuesday.
And a sentencing professor commented:
Jonathan Rosenthal, a Fort Lauderdale defense lawyer who teaches sentencing at Nova Southeastern University, said he found a description of Gholikhan's resentencing "troubling" because the guidelines are only one factor judges should consider."I don't understand how on Monday a sentence of four-and-a-half months is reasonable, but on Tuesday, all of a sudden, that sentence is no longer reasonable," Rosenthal said. "Judges are not supposed to give guidelines any undue weight."
It's a valid point. If a sentence of credit time served is reasonable, how can a sentence of 29 months be reasonable the next day -- especially when the prosecutor had agreed to credit time served. If the situation was reversed -- and the defendant didn't like her sentence -- would a judge allow her to come back to court?
Monday, May 05, 2008
Ethics
Here's a little ethics question for my SDFLA readers on Monday morning:
Should the attorney-client privilege survive a client's death when revealing that client's statements (that he was the murderer and not the guy on death row) would save a man from death row or from life imprisonment (or any imprisonment)?
Those are the questions Adam Liptak examines in this NY Times article from a real life example. It's pretty dramatic that the judge is threatening the lawyer for revealing his dead client's statements:
STAPLES HUGHES, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.
“If you testify,” Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner’s request for a new trial, “I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?”
But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, “it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans.”
Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.
This is a classic law school hypo, and it's interesting to see how it is playing out in the real world. Monroe Freedman, the ethics guru, is quoted a bunch in the article. He would draw the line at saving someone from death row, but not life imprisonment:
Most experts in legal ethics agree that lawyers should be allowed to violate a living client’s confidences to save an innocent man from execution, but not to free someone serving a prison term, however long.
“I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation,” said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra. “That situation is sufficiently rare that is doesn’t present a systemic threat. If that is extended to incarceration in general, it would end the sense of security clients have in speaking candidly with their lawyers.”
The questions get more complicated when the client has died.
So, SDFLA readers, what do you think?
And have a happy Cinco de Mayo!
Should the attorney-client privilege survive a client's death when revealing that client's statements (that he was the murderer and not the guy on death row) would save a man from death row or from life imprisonment (or any imprisonment)?
Those are the questions Adam Liptak examines in this NY Times article from a real life example. It's pretty dramatic that the judge is threatening the lawyer for revealing his dead client's statements:
STAPLES HUGHES, a North Carolina lawyer, was on the witness stand and about to disclose a secret he believed would free an innocent man from prison. But the judge told Mr. Hughes to stop.
“If you testify,” Judge Jack A. Thompson said at a hearing last year on the prisoner’s request for a new trial, “I will be compelled to report you to the state bar. Do you understand that?”
But Mr. Hughes continued. Twenty-two years before, he said, a client, now dead, confessed that he had acted alone in committing a double murder for which another man was also serving life. After his own imprisoned client died, Mr. Hughes recalled last week, “it seemed to me at that point ethically permissible and morally imperative that I spill the beans.”
Judge Thompson, of the Cumberland County Superior Court in Fayetteville, did not see it that way, and some experts in legal ethics agree with him. The obligation to keep a client’s secrets is so important, they say, that it survives death and may not be violated even to cure a grave injustice — for example, the imprisonment for 26 years of another man, in Illinois, who was freed just last month.
This is a classic law school hypo, and it's interesting to see how it is playing out in the real world. Monroe Freedman, the ethics guru, is quoted a bunch in the article. He would draw the line at saving someone from death row, but not life imprisonment:
Most experts in legal ethics agree that lawyers should be allowed to violate a living client’s confidences to save an innocent man from execution, but not to free someone serving a prison term, however long.
“I prefer to draw the line at the life-and-death situation,” said Monroe Freedman, who teaches legal ethics at Hofstra. “That situation is sufficiently rare that is doesn’t present a systemic threat. If that is extended to incarceration in general, it would end the sense of security clients have in speaking candidly with their lawyers.”
The questions get more complicated when the client has died.
So, SDFLA readers, what do you think?
And have a happy Cinco de Mayo!
Friday, May 02, 2008
Joe Cool defendant passes polygraph
Assistant Public Defenders Anthony Natale and Brian Stekloff, along with co-counsel Bill Matthewman, who represent Joe Cool defendant Guillermo Zarabozo, filed a motion yesterday to admit polygraph evidence. Here's the intro:
Mr. Zarabozo has passed scientifically valid polygraph examinations conducted by two separate, leading experts in the field of polygraph examination. Both experts have determined that Mr. Zarabozo truthfully answered questions that demonstrate he did not: (1) commit premeditated murder, i.e., shoot anyone; (2) conspire to commit murder; or (3) commit felony murder. The Eleventh Circuit has held that polygraph evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a witness at trial–here, Mr. Zarabozo. See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1536-37 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, for the reasons discussed in detail below, the science of polygraph examination has evolved to a point where it clearly satisfies the requirements of Daubert. As Justice Potter Stewart stated, “Any rule that impedes the discovery of truth in a court of law impedes as well the doing of justice.” Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 81 (1958) (Stewart, J., concurring). Any effort to deprive a jury from hearing the results of Mr. Zarabozo’s polygraph examinations would run contrary to Justice Stewart’s admonition and would impede justice in this case.
Apparently Zarabozo passed two different polygraph examinations. Here are the questions from the first polygraph:
“1. While on the Joe Cool, did you shoot anyone? Answer – No.
2. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about shooting anyone on board the Joe Cool? Answer – No.
3. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about stealing the Joe Cool? Answer – No.”
And from the second:
“Q1: Regarding what you knew before that charter boat the ‘Joe Cool’ crew was killed and
the boat hijacked last September 22, 2007: Do you intend to answer truthfully each
question about that” A1: Yes.
Q2: Other than what you now know: At any time before the crew members of the Joe
Cool were shot: For any reason did you really know that was going to happen? A2:
No.
Q3: When you said that before the shooting occurred on that boat the Joe Cool; that the
only reason you were on board, was to travel to Bimini and participate in pre-planned
security job with Kirby Archer, did you lie about that? A3: No.
Q4: When you said that you expected to participate in a future CIA assignment with
Kirby Archer either in Cuba or Venezuela after the Bimini security job was done: Did
you lie about that? A4: No.
Q5: When you said that you brought your handgun for use on the Bimini security job and
that it was never intended to be used by you or Kirby Archer to hijack that boat the
Joe Cool: Did you lie about that? A5: No.”
Mr. Zarabozo has passed scientifically valid polygraph examinations conducted by two separate, leading experts in the field of polygraph examination. Both experts have determined that Mr. Zarabozo truthfully answered questions that demonstrate he did not: (1) commit premeditated murder, i.e., shoot anyone; (2) conspire to commit murder; or (3) commit felony murder. The Eleventh Circuit has held that polygraph evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a witness at trial–here, Mr. Zarabozo. See United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529, 1536-37 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, for the reasons discussed in detail below, the science of polygraph examination has evolved to a point where it clearly satisfies the requirements of Daubert. As Justice Potter Stewart stated, “Any rule that impedes the discovery of truth in a court of law impedes as well the doing of justice.” Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74, 81 (1958) (Stewart, J., concurring). Any effort to deprive a jury from hearing the results of Mr. Zarabozo’s polygraph examinations would run contrary to Justice Stewart’s admonition and would impede justice in this case.
Apparently Zarabozo passed two different polygraph examinations. Here are the questions from the first polygraph:
“1. While on the Joe Cool, did you shoot anyone? Answer – No.
2. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about shooting anyone on board the Joe Cool? Answer – No.
3. Before hearing the first gunshot, had you talked with Kirby Archer
about stealing the Joe Cool? Answer – No.”
And from the second:
“Q1: Regarding what you knew before that charter boat the ‘Joe Cool’ crew was killed and
the boat hijacked last September 22, 2007: Do you intend to answer truthfully each
question about that” A1: Yes.
Q2: Other than what you now know: At any time before the crew members of the Joe
Cool were shot: For any reason did you really know that was going to happen? A2:
No.
Q3: When you said that before the shooting occurred on that boat the Joe Cool; that the
only reason you were on board, was to travel to Bimini and participate in pre-planned
security job with Kirby Archer, did you lie about that? A3: No.
Q4: When you said that you expected to participate in a future CIA assignment with
Kirby Archer either in Cuba or Venezuela after the Bimini security job was done: Did
you lie about that? A4: No.
Q5: When you said that you brought your handgun for use on the Bimini security job and
that it was never intended to be used by you or Kirby Archer to hijack that boat the
Joe Cool: Did you lie about that? A5: No.”
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Judge Gold to speak May 14
This should be a great talk. May 14th at the Banker's Club at noon. Cost is $35. RSVP to Lourdes Fernandez at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Rumpole & Ashley Dupre
Rumpole has a funny post about the federal buildings here. From what I hear, there are trials scheduled in the new building in May... I'll believe it when I see it.
The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:
The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.
Not so good for her lawsuit...
UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.
The AP's Curt Anderson reports here that Ashley Dupre is on video saying she is 18 and consenting to the Girls Gone Wild video:
The release came one day after series founder Joe Francis and his companies were sued for $10 million in Miami federal court by Ashley Alexandra Dupre, who claims she was only 17 at the time and too young to sign a binding contract. Dupre, now 22, also accused Francis of exploiting her image and name on various Internet sites.
In the new release, Dupre appears covered by a terrycloth towel and gives her name as Amber Arpaio. An unseen questioner asks if she is 18.
"Yes I am," Dupre answers in a strong Southern accent.
"Do you know what 'Girls Gone Wild' is?" the questioner asks.
"Yes I do," she replies with a laugh.
"Can I use this on 'Girls Gone Wild'?" she is asked.
"Of course you can," Dupre answers.
The video also displays a New Jersey driver's license with the Amber Arpaio name and a birth date that would have made her appear to be in her 20s.
Not so good for her lawsuit...
UPDATE -- the lawsuit fell before Judge Lenard.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
"Prosecutors say jailhouse snitches won't be called to testify in Joe Cool case"
That's the headline from Vanessa Blum's article discussing the government's filing today. It makes sense not to call these guys, who would just muddy the case up for the government. Smart move.
From Blum's article:
Two jailhouse snitches who say they heard incriminating statements from a suspect in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea case won't be called to testify at trial, federal prosecutors stated in a motion filed Monday evening.Their announcement came after attorneys for Guillermo Zarabozo sought to have the so-called confession thrown out, claiming it violated Zarabozo's constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during questioning.U.S. District Judge Paul Huck set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the government's filing. Huck canceled a hearing where the inmates, Antwan Hall and Daniel Noel, were expected to testify about the circumstances of their conversations with Zarabozo in Miami's Federal Detention Center.Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark. are charged with murdering Joe Cool captain Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley Branam, 30; his half brother, Scott Gamble, 35; and first-mate Samuel Kairy, 27 on Sept. 22.
***
But the confession posed problems for prosecutors. First, it could not be used against Archer, meaning the government would be forced to try the two defendants separately if it came in as evidence. Secondly, the inmates would have obvious credibility problems as witnesses, because they are convicted felons seeking sentence reductions.Most urgently, Zarabozo's lawyers wanted Huck to rule on claims the confession violated Zarabozo's right to counsel. In a motion filed last week, defense lawyers said prosecutors knew Hall and Noel were government snitches and intentionally placed the men next to Zarabozo to illicit a confession.Federal judges have ruled that informants who have pre-existing agreements to gather information for prosecutors may be considered government agents. That would make a jailhouse interrogation illegal unless the suspect's lawyer was present.Prosecutors disputed that was the case, saying the government had "no agreement or prearrangement" with the men to seek a confession from Zarabozo.Still, prosecutors agreed not to use the confession unless Zarabozo took the stand at trial and told a different story.The men's trial is currently set for early June but could be pushed back if the government opts to seek the death penalty.
From Blum's article:
Two jailhouse snitches who say they heard incriminating statements from a suspect in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea case won't be called to testify at trial, federal prosecutors stated in a motion filed Monday evening.Their announcement came after attorneys for Guillermo Zarabozo sought to have the so-called confession thrown out, claiming it violated Zarabozo's constitutional right to be represented by an attorney during questioning.U.S. District Judge Paul Huck set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the government's filing. Huck canceled a hearing where the inmates, Antwan Hall and Daniel Noel, were expected to testify about the circumstances of their conversations with Zarabozo in Miami's Federal Detention Center.Zarabozo, 20, of Hialeah and Kirby Archer, 36, of Strawberry, Ark. are charged with murdering Joe Cool captain Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley Branam, 30; his half brother, Scott Gamble, 35; and first-mate Samuel Kairy, 27 on Sept. 22.
***
But the confession posed problems for prosecutors. First, it could not be used against Archer, meaning the government would be forced to try the two defendants separately if it came in as evidence. Secondly, the inmates would have obvious credibility problems as witnesses, because they are convicted felons seeking sentence reductions.Most urgently, Zarabozo's lawyers wanted Huck to rule on claims the confession violated Zarabozo's right to counsel. In a motion filed last week, defense lawyers said prosecutors knew Hall and Noel were government snitches and intentionally placed the men next to Zarabozo to illicit a confession.Federal judges have ruled that informants who have pre-existing agreements to gather information for prosecutors may be considered government agents. That would make a jailhouse interrogation illegal unless the suspect's lawyer was present.Prosecutors disputed that was the case, saying the government had "no agreement or prearrangement" with the men to seek a confession from Zarabozo.Still, prosecutors agreed not to use the confession unless Zarabozo took the stand at trial and told a different story.The men's trial is currently set for early June but could be pushed back if the government opts to seek the death penalty.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Spitzer call girl sues Girls Gone Wild owner...
...here in the Southern District of Florida. Here's the complaint (Ashley Dupre v. Joseph Francis, et al), filed by attorney Richard Wolfe.
Here's some coverage by the Herald:
Five years after Girls Gone Wild filmed the unknown teen cavorting topless in South Beach, the now-notorious Ashley Alexandra Dupré is demanding a cut of the money from the video sales.
Dupré filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court in Miami, claiming Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis and his company owe her more than $10 million.
Now 22 (turning 23 Wednesday), Dupré was a few weeks shy of her 18th birthday when she ran into Francis' film crew outside Miami Beach's Chesterfield Hotel in March 2003. They got her drunk and filmed her flashing her breasts in hotel rooms, according to the suit.
Francis, 35, who arrived in Miami on Monday to promote his new Girls Gone Wild magazine, told The Miami Herald he has ''never sold one'' video of Dupré and referred questions to his attorneys.
Francis repackaged the footage last month after Dupré emerged as a central figure in the high-priced prostitution scandal that ensnared New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, leading to his resignation. Investigators say Spitzer paid big bucks for sexual encounters with Dupré, who worked as an escort named ``Kristen.''
Dupré filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court in Miami, claiming Girls Gone Wild founder Joe Francis and his company owe her more than $10 million.
Now 22 (turning 23 Wednesday), Dupré was a few weeks shy of her 18th birthday when she ran into Francis' film crew outside Miami Beach's Chesterfield Hotel in March 2003. They got her drunk and filmed her flashing her breasts in hotel rooms, according to the suit.
Francis, 35, who arrived in Miami on Monday to promote his new Girls Gone Wild magazine, told The Miami Herald he has ''never sold one'' video of Dupré and referred questions to his attorneys.
Francis repackaged the footage last month after Dupré emerged as a central figure in the high-priced prostitution scandal that ensnared New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, leading to his resignation. Investigators say Spitzer paid big bucks for sexual encounters with Dupré, who worked as an escort named ``Kristen.''
Friday, April 25, 2008
Joe Cool defendant wants to keep supposed statement out
Looks like the Joe Cool case is starting to heat up again...
At a status today, Judge Huck set a hearing on Guillermo Zarabozo's motion to exclude his supposed statement to a jailhouse snitch for next Wed. Here is the intro to Jay Weaver's article:
A Hialeah man charged with another man in the slayings last year of four Miami Beach charter boat crew members is trying to have his alleged ''confession'' to a jailhouse snitch tossed out before trial this summer.
Guillermo Zarabozo has asked a federal judge to suppress testimony by the government's jail ''informant,'' who claims Zarabozo confessed in custody that his co-defendant fatally shot the victims aboard the Joe Cool at sea last fall.
Zarabozo allegedly told the informant in the Federal Detention Center that Kirby Archer, a fugitive from Arkansas, used Zarabozo's gun to shoot the four after Archer argued with the boat captain about taking the vessel to Cuba.
A hearing on Zarabozo's new motion, filed by attorney William Matthewman, is set for Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Paul Huck.
The lawyer claims Zarabozo's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment would be violated if the informant -- Antwan Hall, a felon serving 30 months for possession of a firearm -- is allowed to testify for the prosecution at trial on June 23.
''All that matters is whether the government informant deliberately used his position to secure incriminating information from . . . [Zarabozo] when counsel was not present,'' according to the motion.
Matthewman said Hall's cellmate, Daniel Noel, also convicted on firearm charges and serving 24 months, might be used as a witness to corroborate Hall's testimony.
At a status today, Judge Huck set a hearing on Guillermo Zarabozo's motion to exclude his supposed statement to a jailhouse snitch for next Wed. Here is the intro to Jay Weaver's article:
A Hialeah man charged with another man in the slayings last year of four Miami Beach charter boat crew members is trying to have his alleged ''confession'' to a jailhouse snitch tossed out before trial this summer.
Guillermo Zarabozo has asked a federal judge to suppress testimony by the government's jail ''informant,'' who claims Zarabozo confessed in custody that his co-defendant fatally shot the victims aboard the Joe Cool at sea last fall.
Zarabozo allegedly told the informant in the Federal Detention Center that Kirby Archer, a fugitive from Arkansas, used Zarabozo's gun to shoot the four after Archer argued with the boat captain about taking the vessel to Cuba.
A hearing on Zarabozo's new motion, filed by attorney William Matthewman, is set for Wednesday before U.S. District Judge Paul Huck.
The lawyer claims Zarabozo's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment would be violated if the informant -- Antwan Hall, a felon serving 30 months for possession of a firearm -- is allowed to testify for the prosecution at trial on June 23.
''All that matters is whether the government informant deliberately used his position to secure incriminating information from . . . [Zarabozo] when counsel was not present,'' according to the motion.
Matthewman said Hall's cellmate, Daniel Noel, also convicted on firearm charges and serving 24 months, might be used as a witness to corroborate Hall's testimony.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
How not to do an oral argument
Phipps: . . . so that’s about all I have to say, Your Honor. I don’t have anything other than that. You know, my client lives in Chicago. ... She continues to earn a living, and she’s generally unavailable if you call her because she, she’s sort of a traveling doctor.
Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.
Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.
Judge: What do you do about Morgan?
Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.
Judge: You don’t know Morgan?
Phipps: Nope.
Judge: You haven’t read it?
Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh, Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night. I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t think it applies.
Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?
Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.
Judge: At Tulane, is it?
Phipps: Loyola.
Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.
Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.
Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.
The Fifth Circuit wasn't too happy. It had this to say in a per curium opinion.
[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]
Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.
OUCH!
Judge: That’s not much of thing you come in here and tell us, I guess.
Phipps: Well, my attitude is, the [district court] judge got it right . . . . And as far as whether even Ricks should apply, I don’t think it should.
Judge: What do you do about Morgan?
Phipps: I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know Morgan, Your Honor.
Judge: You don’t know Morgan?
Phipps: Nope.
Judge: You haven’t read it?
Phipps: I try not to read that many cases, your Honor. Ricks is the only one I read. Oh, Ledbetter, I read Ledbetter, and I read that one that they brought up last night. I don’t know if that’s not Ledbetter, I can’t remember the name of it. Ricks is the one that I go by; it’s my North star. Either it applies or it doesn’t apply. I don’t think it applies.
Judge: I must say, Morgan is a case that is directly relevant to this case. And for you representing the Plaintiff to get up here—it’s a Supreme Court case—and say you haven’t read it. Where did they teach you that?
Phipps: They didn’t teach me much, Your Honor.
Judge: At Tulane, is it?
Phipps: Loyola.
Judge: Okay. Well, I must say, that may be an all time first.
Phipps: That’s why I wore a suit today, Your Honor.
Judge: Alright. We’ve got your attitude, anyway.
The Fifth Circuit wasn't too happy. It had this to say in a per curium opinion.
[W]e would be remiss if we did not comment on the conduct of Roger Phipps, counsel for Hartz, during oral argument in this case on Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Phipps’ conduct towards the Court during argument was unprofessional. Even more serious was his admission that during his work on the case (including his preparation for argument), he had not read a key Supreme Court case. His cavalier disregard for his client’s interest and for his obligation to the Court was both troubling and disgraceful. [FN4]
Accordingly, we are ordering Phipps to provide his client, Hartz, a copy of our opinion immediately after it is released. In order to ensure compliance, we are further directing him to supply our Court with proof of service.
OUCH!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Liberty City to be tried a third time
Trial to be set for the Fall.
Here are the minutes from today's hearing:
Government announced they will proceed with a third trial. Deft. Herrera’s motion for bond is granted; $50k ps co-signed by father; deft Abraham’s moton for bond is denied; Prebish’s m/withdraw granted, the Court to appoint counel w/in 2/3 days, further status set for 4/30/08 @8:30am. Trial expected to start sometime in the fall.
UPDATE -- from Vanessa Blum's article:
"We've worked very hard this past week reviewing everything in this case and considering it very, very seriously," said prosecutor Richard Gregorie. "The United States has decided it's necessary to proceed, your honor, one more time."U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard set a hearing for next week to decide on a new trial date. She said she would likely schedule the trial for late 2008.Acknowledging that two juries have been unable to resolve the case, Gregorie said the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree to the release of four defendants on bond.
Prosecutors oppose bond for the group's purported ringleader Narseal Batiste, 34, and Patrick Abraham, 28, who is an illegal U.S. resident.
Here are the minutes from today's hearing:
Government announced they will proceed with a third trial. Deft. Herrera’s motion for bond is granted; $50k ps co-signed by father; deft Abraham’s moton for bond is denied; Prebish’s m/withdraw granted, the Court to appoint counel w/in 2/3 days, further status set for 4/30/08 @8:30am. Trial expected to start sometime in the fall.
UPDATE -- from Vanessa Blum's article:
"We've worked very hard this past week reviewing everything in this case and considering it very, very seriously," said prosecutor Richard Gregorie. "The United States has decided it's necessary to proceed, your honor, one more time."U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard set a hearing for next week to decide on a new trial date. She said she would likely schedule the trial for late 2008.Acknowledging that two juries have been unable to resolve the case, Gregorie said the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree to the release of four defendants on bond.
Prosecutors oppose bond for the group's purported ringleader Narseal Batiste, 34, and Patrick Abraham, 28, who is an illegal U.S. resident.
Mold findings....
Some more coverage of the Dyer mold problem here and here and here.
From the AP:
Miami's historic downtown federal courthouse suffers from extensive contamination of dangerous types of mold and should have some sections closed for cleaning, according to a new environmental study released Tuesday.
But the analysis by a private firm - hired by the attorney for the family of a judge who died in 2006 of a lung ailment - stops short of recommending that the 75-year-old building be shuttered completely.
The now-sealed courtroom formerly used by the U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore Klein before his death contained "very heavy growth" of hazardous mold and there are concerns that spores have spread throughout the building through air conditioning systems, said attorney Alan Goldfarb.
From the AP:
Miami's historic downtown federal courthouse suffers from extensive contamination of dangerous types of mold and should have some sections closed for cleaning, according to a new environmental study released Tuesday.
But the analysis by a private firm - hired by the attorney for the family of a judge who died in 2006 of a lung ailment - stops short of recommending that the 75-year-old building be shuttered completely.
The now-sealed courtroom formerly used by the U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore Klein before his death contained "very heavy growth" of hazardous mold and there are concerns that spores have spread throughout the building through air conditioning systems, said attorney Alan Goldfarb.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Trial stats
The commenters were correct that I posted the wrong link concerning the number of trials in this District. Thanks to a helpful reader, here is the correct link for the total trials in this District and the rest of the country. The conclusion in the prior post -- that we try more cases in this District than any other -- is still correct.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Weekend reading
1. Ben Kuehne. The feds decided to drop the obstruction count, but added a wire fraud count:
Federal prosecutors have added and subtracted charges in the money-laundering indictment brought against prominent Miami attorney Ben Kuehne and two others.
In a superseding indictment filed Friday, the Justice Department added a wire-fraud conspiracy count but dropped an obstruction of justice charge.
2. Trials. in 2007, the SDFLA had 155 trials, more than any other district, followed by SDNY (108), MDFL (108), SDTX(106) and WDTX(105). In fact, we had more trials than the entire 1st Circuit, and almost as many as the 3rd and 10th Circuits.
3. Libery City 7. Vanessa Blum examines why the government is having so much trouble in this case -- perhaps it was because they arrested too early:
The failure of federal prosecutors to convict any members of an alleged South Florida terror cell after two trials highlights the obstacles in a legal strategy of arresting terror suspects before they strike.That approach, known as preemption, has been the Justice Department's mandate since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, drove home the potentially lethal consequences of not acting soon enough to stop terrorism.But moving too quickly may have doomed the so-called Liberty City 7 case by leaving prosecutors without sufficient evidence to back up their sensational allegations that the men wanted to launch a ground war against the U.S. government.Violent rhetoric caught on tape from the group's leader and a grainy video of the defendants swearing an oath of allegiance to al-Qaida have not been enough to convince jurors the men were conspiring to join forces with the terror group and not, as defense lawyers argued, simply playing along in a scheme for money.
4. There is a white collar seminar in the Middle District coming up with some impressive speakers.
Federal prosecutors have added and subtracted charges in the money-laundering indictment brought against prominent Miami attorney Ben Kuehne and two others.
In a superseding indictment filed Friday, the Justice Department added a wire-fraud conspiracy count but dropped an obstruction of justice charge.
2. Trials. in 2007, the SDFLA had 155 trials, more than any other district, followed by SDNY (108), MDFL (108), SDTX(106) and WDTX(105). In fact, we had more trials than the entire 1st Circuit, and almost as many as the 3rd and 10th Circuits.
3. Libery City 7. Vanessa Blum examines why the government is having so much trouble in this case -- perhaps it was because they arrested too early:
The failure of federal prosecutors to convict any members of an alleged South Florida terror cell after two trials highlights the obstacles in a legal strategy of arresting terror suspects before they strike.That approach, known as preemption, has been the Justice Department's mandate since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, drove home the potentially lethal consequences of not acting soon enough to stop terrorism.But moving too quickly may have doomed the so-called Liberty City 7 case by leaving prosecutors without sufficient evidence to back up their sensational allegations that the men wanted to launch a ground war against the U.S. government.Violent rhetoric caught on tape from the group's leader and a grainy video of the defendants swearing an oath of allegiance to al-Qaida have not been enough to convince jurors the men were conspiring to join forces with the terror group and not, as defense lawyers argued, simply playing along in a scheme for money.
4. There is a white collar seminar in the Middle District coming up with some impressive speakers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)