We've discussed this issue many times on this blog. If two parties in the adversary system work out a deal, should the judge be able to reject it? (Along the same lines, should a judge be able to reject a civil settlement?) I think the answer is clearly no for reasons I've articulated before.
The issue has come up again, this time out of the district. This time some (alleged?) crooked judges agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a particular sentence agreed to by the prosecutor. The federal judge rejected the deal in this order, in part because of the "scandalous conduct" of the judges.
What say you, readers? Are you persuaded by the court's reasoning? Should judges be permitted to reject the deals made by the parties to the lawsuit?
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
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Bueller, Bueller, Bueller....
Is there a better comedy than Ferris Bueller's Day Off?
Talk to me people. What's going on in Federal Court this week? Is it just going to be more UBS postings...
Summer's over -- there's gotta be something good going on.
You know it's slow when SFL is comparing Tom Julin to Kingpin and Rumpole is already doing football posts. BTW guys, check out this article -- anonymous bloggers are being outed. And is it me, or is it wrong to put someone (this time Richard Hatch) in jail for giving an interview while at a halfway house?
There are times, however, when it's better to just keep quiet.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Judge Zloch slaps UBS cooperator
We covered earlier the UBS defendant who was asking for probation for his extensive cooperation. The government was asking for 2 1/2 years (or a 50% reduction). Judge Zloch today sentenced Bradley Birkenfeld to 40 months, or 10 months more than the government asked for. (Here's the AP story). What say you, readers? When, if ever, is it appropriate for a judge to sentence above the parties' recommendations? (I think the answer is probably never, but I'm happy to hear arguments to the contrary).
11th Circuit update
Thanks very much to JANE MOSCOWITZ for this guest post:
Richard Strafer and Howard Srebnick had a big win in the Eleventh Circuit this week in United States v. Kaley. Judges Marcus, Wilson and Tjoflat reversed and remanded the district court's decision not to permit the Defendants to challenge the pretrial restraint of assets they wanted to use to hire their counsel of choice, Howard Srebnick and Susan Van Dusen. Judge Marcus wrote that the Court was bound by United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1989), which held that a defendant is only entitled to such a hearing if he meets the Barker v. Wingo balancing test. Here, clearly believing that there should have been an evidentiary hearing, the Court determined that the trial court had failed correctly to balance the Defendants’ assertion of their right to a hearing and the prejudice to them of its denial. Judge Marcus especially noted the prejudice to the Defendants of being deprived of their counsel of choice, calling that a “powerful” form and “substantial source” of prejudice. The Court sent the case back for a correct evaluation of the factors to determine whether a hearing should be held.
Judge Tjoflat concurred in a separate opinion in which he held that Bissell should not apply because its use of Barker v. Wingo was “non-binding dicta.” Judge Tjoflat did not find the return of the indictment or the submission of an ex parte affidavit sufficient to determine whether the restrain was proper. He wrote that under the standard procedural due process test of Mathews v. Eldridge, an evidentiary hearing should be held ( a proposition with which Judge Marcus agreed) and should be held pretrial. The resolution of whether assets that are to be used for the payment of counsel of choice may continue to be restrained cannot wait for determination at the trial. He noted that, if the matter is carried along till trial, the “prosecutorial incentives increase the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation in the absence of a prompt hearing. A prosecutor has everything to gain by restraining assets that ultimately may not be forfeited. By doing so, he can stack the deck in the government’s favor by crippling the defendant’s ability to afford high-quality counsel. If the prosecutor can delay judicial oversight of the restraint until trial, he also has nothing to lose, as he does not have to dedicate any extra resources to defending his decision.”
Richard Strafer and Howard Srebnick had a big win in the Eleventh Circuit this week in United States v. Kaley. Judges Marcus, Wilson and Tjoflat reversed and remanded the district court's decision not to permit the Defendants to challenge the pretrial restraint of assets they wanted to use to hire their counsel of choice, Howard Srebnick and Susan Van Dusen. Judge Marcus wrote that the Court was bound by United States v. Bissell, 866 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1989), which held that a defendant is only entitled to such a hearing if he meets the Barker v. Wingo balancing test. Here, clearly believing that there should have been an evidentiary hearing, the Court determined that the trial court had failed correctly to balance the Defendants’ assertion of their right to a hearing and the prejudice to them of its denial. Judge Marcus especially noted the prejudice to the Defendants of being deprived of their counsel of choice, calling that a “powerful” form and “substantial source” of prejudice. The Court sent the case back for a correct evaluation of the factors to determine whether a hearing should be held.
Judge Tjoflat concurred in a separate opinion in which he held that Bissell should not apply because its use of Barker v. Wingo was “non-binding dicta.” Judge Tjoflat did not find the return of the indictment or the submission of an ex parte affidavit sufficient to determine whether the restrain was proper. He wrote that under the standard procedural due process test of Mathews v. Eldridge, an evidentiary hearing should be held ( a proposition with which Judge Marcus agreed) and should be held pretrial. The resolution of whether assets that are to be used for the payment of counsel of choice may continue to be restrained cannot wait for determination at the trial. He noted that, if the matter is carried along till trial, the “prosecutorial incentives increase the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation in the absence of a prompt hearing. A prosecutor has everything to gain by restraining assets that ultimately may not be forfeited. By doing so, he can stack the deck in the government’s favor by crippling the defendant’s ability to afford high-quality counsel. If the prosecutor can delay judicial oversight of the restraint until trial, he also has nothing to lose, as he does not have to dedicate any extra resources to defending his decision.”
Friday's notes
School's back Monday. To get you in the mood, here's a clip from Back to School:
The DBR reports that the mold lawsuit filed by Ted Klein's family has been dismissed by Judge Story. Apparently, you can only get $1,000 under the Federal Employees Compensation Act when death results from on-duty injuries of a federal employee. Readers, can this law be constitutional? That seems insane to me.
The UBS case keeps going and going and going. This time a banker and a lawyer have been indicted. Via Curt Anderson:
A banker and a lawyer from Switzerland were indicted Thursday on fraud charges for allegedly helping rich Americans evade taxes by hiding assets in Swiss banks, including UBS AG and a smaller Zurich-based institution.
Among the allegations in court documents against banker Hansruedi Schumacher, 51, and 42-year-old attorney Matthias Rickenbach is that they told a New York businessman they paid an unnamed Swiss government official a $45,000 bribe for information on whether the businessman's account would be revealed to U.S. investigators.
Schumacher and Rickenbach each face a single charge of conspiring to defraud the U.S., which carries a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors said both men remain in Switzerland, and it wasn't immediately clear if they had U.S. lawyers to represent them.
The indictment comes one day after the Swiss and U.S. governments unveiled an agreement in which UBS will divulge names of some 4,450 wealthy Americans suspected of dodging taxes through secret bank accounts. Many of those people, and the bankers and attorneys who advised them, could also face criminal charges.
And from the last post, we're debating Plaxico Burress' two year sentence in the comments. Go post your thoughts.
The DBR reports that the mold lawsuit filed by Ted Klein's family has been dismissed by Judge Story. Apparently, you can only get $1,000 under the Federal Employees Compensation Act when death results from on-duty injuries of a federal employee. Readers, can this law be constitutional? That seems insane to me.
The UBS case keeps going and going and going. This time a banker and a lawyer have been indicted. Via Curt Anderson:
A banker and a lawyer from Switzerland were indicted Thursday on fraud charges for allegedly helping rich Americans evade taxes by hiding assets in Swiss banks, including UBS AG and a smaller Zurich-based institution.
Among the allegations in court documents against banker Hansruedi Schumacher, 51, and 42-year-old attorney Matthias Rickenbach is that they told a New York businessman they paid an unnamed Swiss government official a $45,000 bribe for information on whether the businessman's account would be revealed to U.S. investigators.
Schumacher and Rickenbach each face a single charge of conspiring to defraud the U.S., which carries a potential five-year prison sentence. Prosecutors said both men remain in Switzerland, and it wasn't immediately clear if they had U.S. lawyers to represent them.
The indictment comes one day after the Swiss and U.S. governments unveiled an agreement in which UBS will divulge names of some 4,450 wealthy Americans suspected of dodging taxes through secret bank accounts. Many of those people, and the bankers and attorneys who advised them, could also face criminal charges.
And from the last post, we're debating Plaxico Burress' two year sentence in the comments. Go post your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)