Rev. Ike hit with $5 million verdict in federal court

How did no one cover the male on male sexual harassment case before Judge Cooke? Rev. Ike just got hit for $5 million!

The case was: Augusto Medina vs. United Christian Evangelic Association & the Estate of Frederick Eikerenkoetter (Rev. Ike) -- Case No. 08-22111. Congrats to Robyn Hankins and Jennifer Ator for their big win.

I am working on getting some of the details of the case and will post soon. In the meantime, here's a clip of Rev. Ike:



UPDATE -- lots of great stories rolling in about the case. Here's one:

Rev. Ike testified in his deposition, which was played at trial, that he never had any sexual contact with Plaintiff Medina, and that there was no way this could have been consensual because it never happened. Also when asked if there was anyone who could overrule a decision made by him, Rev. Ike said, "All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say, I resign. No."

In the closing argument, Defendants' attorney said that Rev. Ike lied at his depo and that the sex was consensual. Of course Rev. Ike denied it ever happened, the lawyer said, because of his position and Medina knew that he had to deny it and would deny it, which is further proof of the calculated plan to extort money from Rev. Ike.

Apparently there was a gasp from Rev. Ike's widow, who was in the audience, when the lawyer revealed that there was consensual sex.

Wow.

Why I love my TiVo

I got to watch Justice Alito's horrible poker face about 6 times before my wife made me continue with Obama's speech last night. After the President criticized the Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United, Justice Alito mouthed "not true" and shook his head. Here's the video:



All the other Justices kept their poker faces, but Alito was not a happy camper.

Ho hum

Scott Rothstein finally pleaded today. (Here's the agreement.) And Kim Rothstein made an appearance:



And there were even scuffles outside the courtroom.

UPDATE -- so I read the Rothstein plea agreement. It's pretty standard stuff. Things that jumped out at me about it -- the government agreed that if the guidelines are life, they will agree to a downward variance. I think that's quite a concession and one I rarely see in plea agreements. Second, Rothstein agreed to waive his right to appeal and to waive his right to a habeas proceeding. That means that Judge Cohn can sentence Rothstein anywhere from zero to life, and Rothstein cannot attack the sentence. He will have to eat whatever Judge Cohn gives him. (I never understood how a defense lawyer can agree to have his client waive his habeas rights -- if the defense lawyer is ineffective, how can he advise his client to waive that?)

Sick of the Rothstein stuff.... well, fellow geeks, check out this 7th Circuit opinion on Dungeons and Dragons -- finding that it's a threat to prison security! Above The Law covers it here. HT: SB.

1 millliooooon dollars

Julie Kay says lawyers are going to make a lot of money off of the Scott Rothstein mess:

While Scott Rothstein's alleged $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme has proved a tragedy to hundreds of former employees, creditors and investors, it has been a boon to one group -- South Florida's lawyers.
According to experts, when all is said and done, the case will result in legal fees topping $15 million. That figure includes fees to the receiver, Herb Stettin; the two law firms he hired to assist him; a cadre of lawyers and firms hired by creditors and the attorney for the creditors' committee; defense fees for banks, insurance companies and other sued parties; and fees paid to all the criminal defense lawyers hired by Rothstein partners, associates and family members.
``This is like the lawyer's relief act,'' said Guy Lewis, a Miami attorney and former U.S. attorney who has served as receiver in numerous Ponzi/fraud cases. ``It's going to be an eight-figure case. It's probably the biggest receivership in the country right now.''

Bedtime stories

Two articles worth a look:

1. "After 34 Years, a Plainspoken Justice Gets Louder" in the New York Times about Justice Stevens. HT: Rumpole

2. "U.S. Attorney candidates face attacks from old adversaries" in the St. Pete Times about the fighting to become U.S. Attorney in the MDFLA. HT: SFLawyers

Who dat

Looking forward to the Saints/Colts Superbowl. Thank goodness it's not the Jets.

What up people?

Anyone in trial?

Bob Norman was at the Scott Rothstein auction and took some video here.

Here is the Florida Bar's webpage addressing its Haiti relief effort.

That's all I got for you this Monday morning. Hit me up with some news.

UPDATE -- Curt Anderson covers the Supreme Court's decision not to review Manuel Noriega's case.

Justice Stevens has a bad day

Yesterday was a big day in the Supreme Court with the campaign finance decision. But it was also noteworthy because those in the courtroom noted that Justice Stevens was having some trouble reading his dissent. Many have speculated that Justice Stevens is going to retire at the end of the Term, in part because he's hired only one clerk. From the BLT:

It's rare, and always dramatic to watch, when a Supreme Court justice reads from a dissent on the bench. On Thursday, when Justice John Paul Stevens read at length from his stinging 90-page dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it was also a little painful to watch.
For more than 20 minutes, Stevens spoke haltingly as he read from a summary of the dissent, a task he'd ordinarily breeze through. The 89-year-old justice seemed off his game, tripping on some words, getting stuck on others. At one point, he kept mispronouncing the word "corporation" as something like "corpo-russian," and he could not quite get it right.
As CBS News Court correspondent Jan Crawford noted on her blog with similar observations, "Maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we’ve all had those." And the written product is more important than how it was read aloud. But with a justice who is said to be on the verge of retiring at the end of this term, and in a case of such high impact, it was hard not to notice Stevens' tough morning.

Where are the judges?

Jeffrey Toobin asks this question in the New Yorker. It's a fair question. What is taking Obama so long? Toobin:

When Obama took office, there were more than a hundred vacancies on the federal appeals and district courts. One year into his tenure, Obama has made only thirty-one appointments to those courts, and just twelve have been confirmed. In George W. Bush’s first year, with a similar number of vacancies, he made sixty-four nominations. White House officials assert that ten new district court nominations are imminent, but the overall pace remains astonishingly slow. I wrote about this aspect of Obama’s Presidency last September, and the trend has continued.

Why is this? In part, it’s because a Supreme Court vacancy, which the President filled with the admirable Sonia Sotomayor, occupied the White House through the summer months. That successful nomination is both more important—and was more time-consuming—than any of the others.

But there is another major factor as well. As a former Senator himself, the President is a believer in the tradition of senatorial direction of district-court nominations, and senatorial influence on appeals-court choices. The President wanted to include senators in the process, including those of the opposition party. It was an example of Obama’s post-partisan plans in action. If Republicans had a voice in the judicial nominations process, the theory went, partisan bickering would slow, if not cease, and the judiciary would inch away from the culture wars.
As in other areas, Obama’s hopes for post-partisanship failed when it came to the judiciary. Republicans have stalled on many nominations, fought others, and mostly done their best to slow down the pace. What’s perplexing is that Obama himself has not filled the pipeline with nominations; if he did, Republicans might feel some pressure to move the process along. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has held prompt hearings for all of Obama’s nominees, but he can’t hold hearings on nominations that haven’t yet been made.

I don't think either of these explanations work. So what that the administration was working on Justice Sotomayor? It should have been working equally hard on filling the other slots. And as for wanting the Senators' support, I'm not sure this is true. In Florida, for example, the rumors are that the Oval Office did not want a recommendation from the Senators (even though that's how it had worked in the past), which delayed the process. Thankfully, Kathy Williams is finally being vetted. But more openings are on the horizon in the District; hopefully we'll see them filled faster.

UPDATE -- Well, at least one open seat (Lanier Anderson's) just got filled -- the Senate just confirmed new 11th Circuit judge Beverly Martin 97-0. Congrats!

Supreme Court addresses case of the chocolate penis

This is not a joke -- check out Wellons v. Hall, a case that comes out of the 11th Circuit. Here's the AP and the ABA:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider the claims of a Georgia death row inmate who is challenging his rape and murder conviction based on some unusual chocolate gifts given to the trial judge and bailiff.
Some jurors hearing the case against defendant Marcus Wellons gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.
In a 5-4 ruling (PDF), the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion ordered the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider whether Wellons is entitled to discovery and a hearing in light of a high court ruling last year on behalf of an inmate who contended prosecutors withheld evidence of his drug addiction.
“Neither Wellons nor any court has ascertained exactly what went on at this capital trial or what prompted such ‘gifts,’ ” the Supreme Court wrote in the per curiam opinion. “Wellons has repeatedly tried, in both state and federal court, to find out what occurred, but he has found himself caught in a procedural morass.”
The court said that defense counsel did not learn until after the trial about unreported ex parte contacts between jurors and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff planned a reunion, and that jurors gave the chocolate gifts to the judge and bailiff either during or immediately after the penalty phase of the trial.
“From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the Supreme Court said in the per curiam opinion. “The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner’s constitutional claims.”

Ah, that's just too good. In other news: Judge Jordan sentences the Crime Stoppers cop to two months.

And American Idol is back:

Justices Better at Precedent Than Prescience

That's the title to this interesting Adam Liptak NYTimes article. Liptak argues that the Supreme Court Justices aren't too good about making predictions. I particularly like the discussion of broadcasting federal court hearings. I think it's absurd that we don't allow cameras in the courtroom. From the article:

The Supreme Court’s main strength lies in adjudicating disputes based on things that have already happened. It is less good at predicting the future.
On Wednesday, for instance, it shut down plans to broadcast the same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco partly for fear that witnesses in the case would be harassed if their public testimony were made more public. That conclusion is known in the trade as speculation.
Consider first of all that we are talking about a trial held in open court and subject to intense press coverage. The witnesses are mostly paid experts whose views on the subject are already well known. “They’re not, after all, in the witness protection program testifying against Mafia bosses,” Eva Rodriguez wrote in The Washington Post.
Then add to the analysis that the additional coverage the court forbade was only closed-circuit transmissions to a few other federal courthouses around the country. (There had been talk of posting video on YouTube, but the idea was never approved and so was not before the Supreme Court.)
The people viewing the transmissions in the remote courthouses would have been barred from making recordings of the proceedings. Allowing the transmissions, Eugene Volokh wrote on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, was equivalent to “holding the trial in an extra large courtroom.”
“And most of the extra audience would be far from California,” Mr. Volokh added, “and therefore not especially likely to be able to effectively harass the witnesses in ways that turn on seeing the witness’s testimony.”
There were other grounds for the court’s 5-to-4 decision, including the majority’s sense that lower-court judges in California have twisted the procedural rules to allow video coverage, a point that resonated with Ms. Rodriguez and other commentators. But the court also grounded its ruling on a finding that opponents of same-sex marriage “have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result” from the transmissions.

"He's just a natural leader -- it's innate, yet he's so modest."

That's Willy Ferrer's former boss Murray Greenberg in the nice Herald article about Ferrer becoming U.S. Attorney. Here's the intro:

When Barack Obama was elected president, Miami's Democratic machine revved up to raise the profile of Wifredo Ferrer -- now the likely nominee for U.S. attorney in Miami.
His résumé was an easy sell: former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, a one-time federal prosecutor in Miami and chief of Miami-Dade County's federal litigation section.
The son of Cuban immigrants also was valedictorian at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High, first in his class at the University of Miami, and president of his class at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
``When the president was elected and it was clear a Democrat was in the White House, the stars aligned,'' said Obama fundraiser J. Ricky Arriola, who met Ferrer, also an Obama backer, when they were both associates 18 years ago at Steel Hector & Davis in Miami.
``But he stands on his own -- no amount of political spinning would have gotten him this position,'' said Arriola, who was appointed by Obama to the president's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. ``Willy worked very hard to get it.''
Attorney General Eric Holder, former deputy to Reno during her tenure in that post, is overseeing a final FBI review of Ferrer this month before the president is expected to nominate him as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Ferrer, 43, married with two sons, would be the fourth lawyer of Cuban descent to fill the prominent job -- but the first appointed by a Democratic president.

The article concludes with more from Murray:

"He hasn't forgotten his background. He is Hialeah. He's very much at home in the Cuban culture, but he's also very much at home anywhere in Miami, and anywhere in the country.''

Our prior coverage of Willy is here .

Slow blogging

Sorry for the slow blogging. We will be back Monday. In the meantime, check out Rick Bascuas' blog -- he's not happy with the Court. South Florida Lawyers and Rumpole also have good posts. Enjoy the warmer weather...

"We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

That was Chief Assistant Federal Defender Michael Caruso (who should be the next PD after Kathy Williams becomes a judge) at the Jose Padilla oral argument in Atlanta discussing the treatment of his client at the Navy brig:

Convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla's attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to throw out his conviction, arguing that he was the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct."

Padilla gained notoriety when he was accused in 2002 of plotting to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," though those claims were eventually dropped. He was later convicted along with two others in an unrelated terrorism plot.

Padilla's lawyer told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that his client should have been granted an evidentiary hearing before the 2007 trial that would have proved he was being mistreated by the government.

***
In court filings and during arguments Tuesday, Padilla's attorney Michael Caruso contended there should have been an evidentiary hearing before the trial that would have proven he is the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct." He said his client was mistreated and tortured on a Navy brig, charges that federal officials have repeatedly denied.

"There can be no dispute that we have that here - extremely prolonged isolation, psychological and physical abuse, prolonged interrogation," said Caruso. "We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

It will be interesting to see what the Court does on this very sensitive case...

In other news:

SFLawyer covers the Federal Bar lunch here.

The Florida Bar is investigating a number of RRA lawyers (via Miami Herald).

And Scott Rothstein was before Judge Cohn today explaining that because he has known his lawyer Marc Nurik for 30 years (Nurik later said this was an exaggeration), he didn't think there could be a conflict:

Also, prosecutors said that Nurik could have exculpatory information since he worked with Rothstein.

But Rothstein told Cohn that he has no reservations about keeping Nurik as his attorney.

``I believe in his loyalty,'' Rothstein said.

When Cohn asked Rothstein if Nurik may attempt to protect other employees at the firm who prosecutors said may have criminal culpability, Rothstein said:

``I've known Mr. Nurik for 30 years, Judge. I don't believe that is a possibility for him.''

After the hearing, Nurik said that 30 years was an exaggeration -- he said he met Rothstein when he was a student in his trial advocacy class at Nova Southeastern University law school.

Rothstein racked up 20 Million AMEX points

Damn....

In other news, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts -- the confrontation case from last term that said lab reports were subject to Crawford and the Confrontation Clause -- may be on the chopping block. From Tony Mauro at Law.com:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was not on the Court for the Melendez-Diaz case, sent out mixed signals on whether she would provide the vote needed for reversal. (Her predecessor David Souter was in the majority.) As has become her custom, Sotomayor actively questioned both sides during Monday's argument in Briscoe v. Virginia.
Meanwhile Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored last year's ruling, fought vociferously to save it during the hourlong hearing, and he strongly implied that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz had voted to review Briscoe just to overturn the precedent. "Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?" Scalia asked, later adding, "I'm criticizing us for taking the case."
In the case before the Court, Mark Briscoe and Sheldon Cypress were prosecuted in Virginia courts on drug charges based in part on "certificates of analysis" from the state laboratory attesting to the amount and type of drugs found during their arrests. They both invoked the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. They argued that the drug evidence needed to be presented in person so it could be subjected to cross-examination. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld use of the written certificates because state law allows defendants to call the forensic analysts as witnesses, and Briscoe and Cypress had not done so.
The Court in Melendez-Diaz indicated that an approach like Virginia's, shifting the burden of calling the witness to the defendant, would not satisfy the Sixth Amendment.
Upholding the Virginia approach, said the defendants' lawyer Richard Friedman, would "severely impair the confrontation right and threaten a fundamental transformation in the way Anglo-American trials have been conducted for hundreds of years."
But a brief (pdf) filed by state attorneys general asking that Melendez-Diaz be overturned was on the mind of several justices. The brief said the decision has already had an "overwhelming negative impact" on drug prosecutions by requiring short-staffed and underfunded state labs to spend too much time in courtrooms.
When Friedman said that, in fact, "the expense is not inordinate," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. snapped, "How can you say that? We have an amicus brief from 26 states and the District of Columbia arguing exactly the contrary."
Virginia Solicitor General Stephen McCullough, joined by Leondra Kruger, an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued that a system in which the defendant has the burden of calling the forensic witness satisfies the Constitution.
McCullough said that, since the Melendez-Diaz ruling was handed down, Virginia has seen "extensive gamesmanship" by criminal defense lawyers using the requirement of in-person testimony to their advantage.
Sitting at the defendants' counsel table with Friedman was Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher. Either Fisher or Friedman has argued the defense side in a series of cases that, since 2004, have revived the confrontation clause as a tool for defendants.

UPDATE -- at the argument, there was some talk about the word orthogonal:

University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman was trying to define the scope of the confrontation clause in oral arguments yesterday when he was called on to define another term: orthogonal.
Friedman used the word when he indicated that a justice’s question was not pertinent to the present case, according to The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times and the Washington Post. "I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here," he said. The word is a math term meaning things are perpendicular or at right angles, but Friedman used it to mean that two propositions are irrelevant, the BLT says.
That got the attention of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "I'm sorry. Entirely what?" he said.
"Orthogonal,” Friedman replied. “Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant."
Friedman tried to continue, but Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in. "What was that adjective? I liked that," he said.
"I think we should use that in the opinion," Scalia later added. “Or the dissent,” said Roberts.

Jose Padilla case to be argued in the 11th Circuit this week

And SDFLAers, you won't be able to watch it unless you are in Atlanta tomorrow.

The DBR previews the argument here. Both sides have appealed -- the defense has appealed the conviction and the government has appealed the sentence. Should be interesting to see what the court is focused on during the oral argument.

Here's the intro to the DBR story:

Expect the specter of Osama bin Laden and the torture of detainees to be raised Tuesday during oral arguments in the appeals by reputed dirty bomber Jose Padilla and two co-defendants convicted of sponsoring terrorism abroad. The arguments come just a few weeks after the failed Christmas Day attempt by a Nigerian man linked to the terrorist group al Qaeda to blow up an American airliner. Foremost among the issues before a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta is a decision by the trial judge to allow jurors to see a videotape of al Qaeda leader bin Laden. Attorneys for Padilla, Adham Hassoun and Kifah Jayyousi say the trial was forever tainted when the videotape was played because it linked the defendants to the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil even though they were charged with other crimes. “The error in the admission of the bin Laden video arose out of tying the architect of the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, to a case that, as to all defendants, involved conduct which predated these attacks,” Padilla’s attorney, Assistant U.S. Federal Defender Michael Caruso, argues in his brief.

Government: No actual conflict with Mark Nurik

Here's the government's response to Judge Cohn's inquiry regarding whether Marc Nurik is under investigation: he's not. The government explains that he isn't a target or subject in the investigation. But it says:

The government perceives two areas in which Mr. Nurik’s representation of the defendant presents a potential conflict of interest which must be addressed. In examining potential conflicts of interest, the Court’s “goal is to discover whether the defense lawyer has divided loyalties that prevent him from effectively representing the defendant.” United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1523 (11th Cir. 1994). As a former employee of RRA, which has been designated as the Enterprise through which criminal conduct was conducted herein, Mr. Nurik has, at a minimum, professional relationships with other employees of RRA who do have apparent criminal culpability in the case, which could conceivably interfere with the undivided loyalty that Mr. Nurik owes to the defendant.

Secondly,* because Mr. Nurik was an employee at RRA, he may personally be in the position to provide exculpatory evidence on the defendant’s behalf, which would be prohibited if Mr. Nurik persisted in his representation of the defendant.

It is the government’s position that, in the instant case, because the aforesaid constitute potential, rather than actual, conflicts of interest, the defendant may waive those conflicts at a properly-conducted Garcia hearing.

*My question -- is "secondly" a word? Or is it just, "second"?

Congrats to the Hawk

Hometown hero Andre Dawson made the Hall. Sweet!

In SDFLA news, the Scott Rothstein plea has been set, but before Judge Cohn will conduct the change of plea hearing, he is having a McLain hearing next week and requiring the government to state in writing whether it is investigating Rothstein's lawyer Marc Nurik.

I'm in the Middle District today... Will report back this afternoon.

Shocking news

Scott Rothstein to plead guilty. Here's Curt Anderson from the AP:
Disbarred South Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein is negotiating a guilty plea with federal prosecutors on charges of orchestrating a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme using faked legal settlements, his attorney said Tuesday.
"I can tell you that there will be a change of plea to guilty," said Rothstein attorney Marc Nurik. "We don't have any finalization on the details at this point."
Nurik said he will ask a federal judge Wednesday to set a date for the change of plea hearing. Rothstein, 47, pleaded not guilty in December to a five-count indictment accusing him of racketeering, conspiracy and fraud in a scheme that ran from 2005 to 2009.

Lots going on

Thanks to all my peeps for sending lots of tips the last couple of days. There's lots going on:

1. Judge Zloch is in the news. From not letting Bradley Birkenfeld -- the UBS informant -- push off his surrender date to spanking Loring Spolter. The 60 Minutes gambit by Birkenfeld didn't pay off, I guess. As for Spolter, I'm surprised he's getting as much sympathy as he is: check out Bob Norman's blog here.

2. In the wake of a tough year for DOJ, there are new discovery guidelines for prosecutors. Here are the 3 new memos that criminal practitioners on both sides of the aisle will be reading today:

Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group

Requirement for Office Discovery Policies in Criminal Matters

Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery

Tom Withers covers the memos here. A snippet from his summary:

The Guidance Memo then directs that the discovery review should cover the following: 1) the investigative agency’s files, 2) Confidential Informant/Witness/Source files, 3) Evidence and Information Gathered During the Investigation, 4) Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys and/or Regulatory Agencies in Parallel Civil Investigations, 5) Substantive Case Related Communications, 6) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Law Enforcement Witnesses, 7) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 Declarants, 8) Information Obtained in Witness Interviews, a) Witness Statement Variations and the Duty to Disclose, b) Trial Preparation Meetings With Witnesses and c) Agent Notes.
The Guidance Memo then directs that although prosecutors may delegate the process of review to others, they “should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”

3. Lots of coverage on the shootings from Las Vegas. Just terrible stuff. Here's the video that is making the internet rounds:



And here's Brian Tannebaum's take:

Today at every federal courthouse security will be a little tighter. People will get a second look, maybe a third. There is no correlation between what happened in Las Vegas yesterday and federal court anywhere else. People get angry at the grocery store, at the post office, and at work. But it's like when someone with a shoe bomb tries to blow up a plane, well, you know the rest.We (those who go to court) all have to deal with what happened yesterday. It will happen again, we all know that. But because we cannot stop a sick, angry litigant from sneaking in with a gun, a shotgun, we have to at least pretend we can. The gunman was dressed in black. Watch "no black" be the next addition to the dress code. We can only sigh and understand that this is the world in which we live.It angers me that today I have to mourn the death of a Court Security Officer, a retired cop now one of the guys in blue jackets that waive familiar lawyers through, and say "how you doin' today counsel?". A guy who just "went to work" right after the new year, and left the courthouse dead. Five seconds before he was probably talking to a prosecutor, defense lawyer, or fellow security officer about his New Year's vacation. or the weekend's football games.Pisses me off.


4. Random thought of the day: Why does Blogger say that internet is misspelled?

Judge Graham and Judge Ungaro go to Uganda

Judges Graham and Ungaro recently participated in a training program for Judges, lawyers, law enforcement personnel, court administrators and others in Jinja, Uganda. Beth Sreenan also participated as the DOJ representative. From what I understand, it was a great experience.

In other Monday afternoon news, the DBR covers the honest services fraud debate here. And they even have a video:



AFTERNOON UPDATE -- Very sad news: there's been a shooting at the Las Vegas Federal Courthouse leaving a court security office dead, and a marshal in critical condition. The shooter has been shot dead. The link above is from the local Las Vegas paper, which also has a video. Terrible news.

Let's hit it -- 2010

Okay, we're back -- Happy New Year!

Batteries charged and all that. Ready for twenty-ten. Not ready for the traffic after the holiday weekend...

Last year we had Ben Kuehne, Scott Rothstein, and of course, Paris Hilton. Who will we have in 2010?

Lots of end-of-year blogging:

The White Collar Blog has some fun end of year posts here and here. The bloggers are really looking forward to seeing what the Supreme Court will do with the honest services cases coming up. More on that from me later.
Even the Chief Justice got into the act with this end-of-year report. Here's the intro:

Chief Justice Warren Burger began the tradition of a yearly report on the federal judiciary in 1970, in remarks he presented to the American Bar Association. He instituted that practice to discuss the problems that federal courts face in administering justice. In the past few years, I have adhered to the tradition that Chief Justice Burger initiated and have provided my perspective on the most critical needs of the judiciary. Many of those needs remain to be addressed. This year, however, when the political branches are faced with so many difficult issues, and when so many of our fellow citizens have been touched by hardship, the public might welcome a year-end report limited to what is essential: The courts are operating soundly, and the nation’s dedicated federal judges are conscientiously discharging their duties. I am privileged and honored to be in a position to thank the judges and court staff throughout the land for their devoted service to the cause of justice. Best wishes in the New Year.

While we're on the Supremes, there's more on Scalia's obsession with the (non)word "choate" from the NYT magazine here.

Why does choate get under Scalia’s skin? Bryan A. Garner, who wrote “Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges” with Scalia, told me the justice is “disgusted” by the term’s faulty etymological basis. As Garner himself puts it in his Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, choate is “a misbegotten word,” since the in- of inchoate is not in fact a negative prefix. Its root, the Latin verb incohare, meaning “to begin, start out,” originated in the metaphor of hitching up a plow, derived from in- (on) and cohum (strap fastened to a yoke).
Stripping the in- from inchoate is known as back-formation, the same process that has given us words like peeve (from peevish), surveil (from surveillance) and enthuse (from enthusiasm). There’s a long linguistic tradition of removing parts of words that look like prefixes and suffixes to come up with “roots” that weren’t there to begin with. Some back-formations work better than others. Unlike Scalia’s improbable analogy of changing insult into sult, back-forming choate is an understandable maneuver for anyone who isn’t a Latin scholar, given that inchoate is in the same semantic ballpark as words that really do have a negative in- prefix, like incoherent and incomplete.
By ruling from the bench on what is and isn’t a word, Scalia is following in the footsteps of his former colleague William Rehnquist, who once interrupted the argument of a lawyer who dared to use the nonstandard word irregardless. “I feel bound to inform you that there is no word in the English language irregardless,” Rehnquist said. “The word is regardless.”

Our previous coverage here.

What would a 2009 roundup be without another story of prosecutorial misconduct, which led to dismissal of the Blackwater case:

The judge, Ricardo M. Urbina of the District's federal court, found that prosecutors and agents had improperly used statements that the guards provided to the State Department in the hours and days after the shooting. The statements had been given with the understanding that they would not be used against the guards in court, the judge found, and federal prosecutors should not have used them to help guide their investigation. Urbina said other Justice Department lawyers had warned the prosecutors to tread carefully around the incriminating statements.
"In their zeal to bring charges," Urbina wrote in a 90-page opinion, "prosecutors and investigators aggressively sought out statements in the immediate aftermath of the shooting and in the subsequent investigation. In so doing, the government's trial team repeatedly disregarded the warnings of experienced, senior prosecutors, assigned to the case specifically to advise the trial team" on such matters.

As for me, well, I came in second in the blog fantasy league, losing in the finals to RichRodisCuban (by a measly 5 points). Congrats on a good year. Here are the final results:

League Champion
RichRodisCuban
2nd
SDFLA Blog
3rd
de la Fins
4th
Steel City Crackers
5th
SouthFloridaLawyers
6th
Male Bondage


Over the break, I watched the great movie -- American President. Here's "the speech," which I could watch again and again:




Also saw Avatar, which was unbelievable. I gave it an A.

Holiday Blogging

Sorry I haven't been blogging much this week -- I've actually been swamped... Soooo, we're gonna close down the blog until the new year unless something big comes up (For example, if I win the blog fantasy football championship this weekend against RichRodisCuban, I will post about it!). Other than that, though, I need a little break. Have a great holiday season. Happy New Year and see you in 2010.

Innocent people pleading guilty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Gerger out of Houston summed up best:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Silly

Here's something to make you laugh this weekend -- it's the second most downloaded video of 2009.

RIP Joan Grady

Joan Grady -- longtime assistant to Kathy Williams at the FPD's office -- has passed away. Joan was an incredibly hard worker, and was always available to the lawyers in the office and the CJA lawyers looking for help. She was really loved by everyone and we'll all miss her.

Miami's worst kept secret is out

Rumpole and the DBR finally broke what people have been talking about for weeks now -- that the White House is actively vetting Kathy Williams for the open judge seat and Willy Ferrer for U.S. Attorney.

Congrats to these two very well-deserving candidates. Both are going to be absolutely great....

As an aside, I held off on posting this news for the past couple of weeks because the vetting process is very sensitive and I didn't want anything to slow the process for Kathy or Willy. But now, it's out there, so I am posting it...

Hopefully the official nomination will happen by the end of the year.

Louie the interpreter retiring

No doubt that longtime court interpreter Angel Luis Nigaglioni "has seen it all." Here's a nice Herald article about him and his career.

The longest serving interpreter in U.S. federal court -- whose voice was also known to millions of Spanish speakers worldwide as that of late President Ronald Reagan en español -- has retired.
During his 35-year career, Angel Luis Nigaglioni played a unique part in South Florida's tumultuous judicial history, participating in such high-profile proceedings as the prosecution of Miami River Cops on corruption charges and the trial of Gen. Manuel Noriega, the former military dictator of Panama.
``I have seen everything. It is a fascinating profession in that every day you learn something, not just about language but about the human condition,'' Nigaglioni, 70, said.

We're #1!

The American Tort Reform Association has ranked South Florida as the #1 "Judicial Hellhole" in the nation. How silly. Here's what they say:

South Florida, the home of WhoCanISue.com, is known for its medical malpractice claims, never-ending tobacco lawsuits and generous verdicts. Trial practices favor plaintiffs, as exemplified by a string of reversals in a Miami-Dade case against Ford Motor Company. Florida is also developing a reputation as the place to bring slip-and-fall lawsuits due to its lower burden of proof compared to other states, making the state ripe for fraudulent claims. Supermarkets, corner stores, and restaurants have no choice but to settle, regardless of whether they could have prevented accidents. In addition, Florida is one of the few states that allow those who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs to sue the automobile manufacturer for failing to prevent their injuries by designing a safer car, while hiding from the jury the driver's responsibility for the crash. South Florida is home to several legal scandals this year, in which lawyers enriched themselves with their clients' money and bought hospital records to solicit business. Even the organization representing plaintiffs' lawyers in the state has found itself in hot water.

"The defendant here isn't exactly Tinker Bell."

That was Judge Turnoff today in presiding over the bond hearing for Robert Antoine, a former Haitian government official charged in a telecom bribery scheme involving Haiti's state-owned telecommunications company. Judge Turnoff set a 10% bond at $1 million, meaning that Antoine will have to post $100,000 with the court. He'll get that back with interest if he sees the case through. Here's the Herald article. A snippet:

Federal prosecutors argued that Antoine was a flight risk and wanted him detained. ``He is the primary mover and shaker who made this all happen,'' U.S. Attorney Kimberly Selmore said in court. ``Without him, this couldn't be done.''
Selmore argued it was Antoine who was responsible for the contracts that allowed Esquenazi and Rodriguez to allegedly defraud Haiti Teleco. Antoine was joined by 19 family and friends in court Monday, and family members say they will come up with the money. Another hearing is scheduled to determined if the money is clean.
Antoine's attorney Dennis Kainen argued that his client should be allowed to post bail to fight the charges from behind bars. He said even before his extradition he had intended to fly to Miami from Haiti on Sunday.
"His ties to the community are overwhelming,'' said Kainen, noting that Antoine has been living in South Florida since 1969.

In other news, Curt Anderson covers the civil case against Chuckie Taylor:

Five Africans who claim they were tortured and abused in Liberia when former President Charles Taylor ruled will come to a Miami courtroom next week seeking millions of dollars from the man they say ordered the atrocities: Taylor's son, Charles McArthur Emmanuel.
Emmanuel, also known as Charles ``Chuckie'' Taylor Jr., was convicted in federal court in Miami last year of violating U.S. anti-torture laws as a high-level enforcer for his father. He is serving a 97-year prison sentence.
The five Liberian victims filed a lawsuit against him earlier this year, winning a default judgment in May that leaves only the question of damages for a trial that begins Monday.
***
Emmanuel, 32, did not initially contest the lawsuit but will appear in court and apparently act as his own lawyer in the bench trial next week before U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan. He has already been transferred from a federal prison in Marion, Ill., to Miami's downtown detention center, and has filed several handwritten motions.
In one of them, he asks an attorney for the Liberians for details about the victims and their case, but says it is doubtful that he will take the witness stand next week.
``I will not be testifying in the December proceeding,'' Emmanuel wrote. ``That could change based upon the information requested.''

The U

The buzz around town this morning is the documentary "The U," which played Saturday night on ESPN as part of their 30 for 30 series. I have discussed it a bit in prior posts, but I had no idea how unbelievable the movie was going to be. I had very high expectations, but the movie far exceeded anything I could have hoped for. It transported me back to the late 80s, watching UM games with friends. If you haven't seen it, make sure you do.

Kim Rothstein in the news

That's her high school yearbook picture. Brittany Wallman of the Sun-Sentinel has a great in-depth piece on Kim Rothstein. Bob Norman's wife scooped him!
From the article:

A health crisis struck when she was 12. She collapsed at a Plantation Central Park karate tournament. Doctors found she had a blood vessel disorder in her brain, a condition that causes seizures and headaches. She took a break from her beloved sport.
A 4.0 student at Seminole Middle School in Plantation, she became depressed and her grades slipped, the Sun Sentinel reported at the time.
But she made a comeback, despite the health risks.
"She's a great example of a never-quit attitude,'' her late grandfather John Shaffer told the newspaper.
"She is both charming and intelligent. Her accomplishments in karate are rather amazing,'' her doctor told the newspaper.
She went on to South Plantation High School.
After graduating in 1992, she and her mother owned and operated a wellness center on University Drive in Davie, selling books and offering classes on yoga, belly dancing and reiki. She is a spiritual person, a practicer of Transcendental Meditation, and a good person, said Linnet O'Neal, a longtime acquaintance. Since meeting her now-husband, Kim has been studying Judaism.
O'Neal shopped at the store and eventually bought it from Kim's mother, a spiritual adviser who now works at a holistic health center.
"You've heard of people who are gifted clairvoyantly, who have intuition where they guide people almost as a life coach? Lynn is a wonderful teacher, and very humble and giving person. And Kimmie is a very humble and very sweet girl,'' O'Neal said.
About nine years ago, Kim Rothstein went back to school to obtain her real estate license, making her mother proud, O'Neal said.

Ben Kuehne thanks his supporters

It was a packed event tonight as judges, former prosecutors, defense lawyers, and many others in the community came to celebrate with Ben. To the left is a picture of Ben from the party. And here are his remarks:

“Let there be Justice, and then no one will ask for anything unjust.” So proclaimed the revered patriot, lawyer, and scholar Jose Marti.

I am here today as proof to all that Justice lives in America. That we live in a time in a Nation that honors the message of philosopher Alan-Rene Lesage: “Justice is such a fine thing that we cannot pay too dearly for it.”

We are all fortunate to say we have a Justice Department whose goal is to try to do the right thing. I am humbled that the Department of Justice made the honorable decision to do the right thing.
As Dr. Martin Luther King enunciated, “the time is always right to do the right thing.” The Department’s timing was impeccable.

And I do not mean the right decision just for me. Instead, the inevitable resolution of my own legal drama is a reaffirmation by the highest powers of our Government that lawyers, including criminal defense lawyers, serve an essential – a vital -- purpose in our society. Our professional endeavor of testing the government, checking the exercise of public power, and challenging our institutions in an ethical but adversarial manner – what we do every day – is an honorable cause.

One of the great trial lawyers of our time, Edward Bennett Williams, observed that “Law is but a means; justice is the end.” We lawyers serve that cause of justice, and this outpouring of community support is a welcome approval of that cause.

Seekers of justice see our system as one that actively embraces achieving the right result, with our independent judiciary willing to reach correct conclusions defined by the law and the facts.

I readily applaud the several brilliant jurists who were so willing to apply the law as it is, as it should be, without fear of criticism. I am the beneficiary of the attention and “eminently correct” rulings by several of the very finest federal judges to serve the public interest.

Although it is understandable in the crystal clear light of hindsight that my legal case is what we refer to as a “No Brainer”, that it became so is the direct result of my dedicated team of outstanding lawyers: led by John Nields, Jason Raofield, and Laura Shores from Howrey in Washington, D.C., and my good friend, Jane Moscowitz, from Miami. I publicly thank them for their skill, dedication, and commitment to me and the precedent-setting value of my case.

But the reason for this Appreciation Reception is because of you, your support and attention to my case and the underlying message of enabling lawyers to be lawyers, without fear of retribution or prosecution. This day would not have been possible without all of you serving as the constant, pervasive, and effective foundation for my demonstration of innocence.

A message repeated by our independent Fourth Estate, our media. I am gratefully indebted to the Miami Herald and its court’s reporter Jay Weaver, and the Daily Business Review, especially John Pacenti, as well as the other journalists both locally and nationally, who consistently reported the truth of my case. The message was heard loud and clear, and helped to bring about a fitting end to my case.

I work daily with a stellar group of lawyers and legal professionals who never abandoned me, content with the knowledge that I would prevail in this classic battle. Allow me the privilege of thanking Susan Dmitrovsky, Bob Ader, Beth Hitt, Robert Hertzberg, and Amanda Maxwell, as well as Mirta Rodriguez, Sandy Hart, Leeza Bodes, Serena Young, Luly Moreno, and especially Barney Brown, who after being exonerated after serving 38 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, works with me as my legal intern.

President Kennedy once observed that “Our nation is founded on the principle that observance of the law is the eternal safeguard of liberty, while defiance of the law is the surest road to tyranny.” As lawyers and community leaders, we must lead the way to ensure that observance of the law is ingrained in our society, so that no one, not even the government, can claim a right to ignore or countermand the rule of law.

Let us sharpen our pencils and write a clear message to those in our community who may not understand and appreciate the abiding passion for justice in our nation: Our diligence every day, as directed by our Constitution, to provide effective counsel to our clients, is the keystone to our democratic way of life.

Throughout this legal drama, my greatest strength has been the unsinkable spirit and love of my wife, Lynn, and our entire family. I want to thank them for knowing who I am, and of my sincere dedication to the law.

Allow me to close with a story about Rudyard Kipling, one of the great writers. In the prime of his career, it was said he was making the previously unheard of sum of one shilling per word. Learning of this, a group of Oxford students, on a lark, decided to wire the Great One a single shilling and ask, in return, for one - just one – of his very best words. Soon enough, Kipling wired back just one word: “THANKS.”

I thank you – all of you who work so diligently to bring justice to our community, our courts, our nation – most appreciatively for giving me the opportunity to work with so many great people in making our America and our community a better place.

Well said!

Here's our prior coverage of Ben's case.

Quick Hits

Sorry for the slow blogging. I'm getting killed over at work. But quickly:

1. Josephus Eggelletion pleads guilty to money laundering, will resign (via Miami Herald).

2. Liberia victims to face Taylor's son in US court (via AP).

3. Obama's acceptance speech (via London Times).

4. ALI pulls plug on standards for death penalty (via Ellen Podgor at White Collar Crime Blog)

We'll be back soon.

AUSA David Haimes named Broward Circuit Judge

Congrats to long-time federal prosecutor David Haimes on his appointment to the state bench. Here's Gov. Crist's press release:

Governor Charlie Crist today announced the appointment of David A. Haimes of Plantation to the 17th Judicial Circuit Court.
“David epitomizes the spirit of a dedicated and committed public servant,” Governor Crist said. “With over 15 years of legal service under his belt, I am confident he has the expertise and insight to serve the people of the 17th Circuit well.”
Haimes, 44, has served in the United States Attorney’s Office as an assistant U.S. attorney since 2003. Previously, he served as an assistant state attorney with the Florida State Attorney’s Office of the 17th Judicial Circuit from 1999 to 2003; as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable William Dimitrouleas from 1998 to 1999; as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice from 1995 to 1998; and as a judicial law clerk for the Honorable William J. Zloch from 1993 to 1995. He earned a bachelor’s degree from University of Notre Dame and a law degree from Notre Dame Law School.
Haimes will fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Robert B. Carney, effective December 31, 2009.

Hat tip: JAABlog.

"Gotta get away from my lawyer. Sit tight. Say nothing. Write nothing. Brooklyn to bronx. I'll make u famous."

That was Scott Rothstein texting with Sun-Sentinel reporter Mike Mayo. They had nicknames for each other and everything. Rothstein kept up a con with Mayo, promising him that he would get the exclusive Rothstein interview -- I guess to keep Mayo from writing anything too critical about him. Mayo details the exchanges here. It's an interesting read.

Of course, the most comprehensive place to go for Rothstein news is the Daily Pulp. Bob Norman is just churning out news over at his site. Good stuff.

In other news:

1. Ex-Broward Commissioner Josephus Eggelletion to plead guilty (via Herald). Looks like Ben Kuehne is back to work -- he and Kendall Coffee are representing Eggelletion.

2. SFL covers Judge Moreno's decision to pay Roberto Martinez and Colson Hicks $4.5 million more than initially approved for work as a receiver. Although Judge Moreno gave less than Martinez was asking for, he still about double the hourly rate that was billed ($450 vs. $218). Any thoughts on this? Should CJA lawyers be able to ask for a kicker when they do good work?

3. Honest-services fraud is before the High Court this week. Should be really interesting. More on this later, but here's a primer from USA Today.

Ben Kuehne event and other weekend news

This should be something:

BENEDICT P. KUEHNE
In Grateful Appreciation of the
Overwhelming Community Support of his Innocence

Invites the Community to his
APPRECIATION RECEPTION
On the Occasion of his Vindication

Sky lobby
Bank of America tower
100 S.E. 2nd Street
Miami, Florida 33131
Thursday, December 10, 2009
5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m.
RSVP to: RSVP@kuehnelaw.com

In other news, former AUSAs Mike Tein and Richard Scruggs sqaured off before their state court trial, which starts Monday morning. Tein filed a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct and the judge allowed Tein to cross-examine Scruggs. Apparently, there were fireworks:

Fri., Dec. 4 2009 @ 9:11PM




Richard Scruggs is usually the guy asking people tough questions and getting witnesses to spill the beans. But today Miami-Dade's veteran public corruption prosecutor was on the receiving end of an intense grilling. And he was not enjoying himself.It went down inside the courtroom of Judge Beatrice Butchko in the Miami-Dade criminal justice building at 1351 NW 12th Street. The man putting the screws on Scruggs was Michael Tein, the criminal defense lawyer representing Rev. Gaston Smith, who is facing grand theft charge for allegedly stealing $17,000 in county grant money.Tein accuses Scruggs of prosecutorial misconduct in Smith's case.During several hours of testimony this afternoon, Scruggs's answers went from terse to angry. At one point he growled: "Mr. Tein will you calm the rhetoric please."He repeatedly denied he acted with malicious intent when he waited a month to inform Smith and Smith's other criminal defense attorney that a Miami-Dade police detective had secretly recorded two conversations they had with Scruggs and investigators before the clergyman was indicted. Tein zealously quizzed Scruggs if he ever informed Smith that he was a criminal target during the pastor's interviews before he was arrested. "No, no, no, no," Scruggs grumbled. "You got that!"
***
Scruggs disputed comments attributed to him by Miami New Times staff writer Gus Garcia-Roberts in this profile of Smith. He claims he never told Garcia-Roberts Smith had rejected a plea deal in exchange for his testimony against suspended Miami city commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones. (Scruggs is prosecuting her for allegedly stealing $50,000 in county funds.) Scruggs also denied telling Garcia-Roberts that he had reported Smith to the Internal Revenue Service for possible tax evasion. "Absolutely not," Scruggs said under oath. "I don't recall talking about taxes at all."Judge Butchko appeared skeptical. She asked: "So how would the reporter know that if he didn't get it from you? Is the reporter clairvoyant?"Scruggs' reply: "I don't know." He said that alot during his inquisition. And the assistant state attorney conceded that he did tell Garcia-Roberts that Smith "was caught with his hand in the cookie jar." But he claimed it was off the record.Then Scruggs revealed something that just made no sense. When Tein asked him why he didn't complain to New Times editor Chuck Strouse or demand a correction, Scruggs says he decided not to because "no one reads this stuff anyway." Tein: "No one reads the New Times?"Scruggs: "Yeah, Uh-huh."

Apparently, court went until 9:30 Friday night with Tein throwing punch after punch against Scruggs. This trial (preview here by the Miami Herald) should be a fun one to watch.

UPDATE -- here's another New Times article on the hearing, and here is a portion of the transcript including part of Tein's cross of Scruggs and the judge's ruling.

See you all at this event

The Steve Chaykin Fellowship event is coming up:

When: Saturday, January 9, 2010

6:30 pm -- Cocktail Reception

8:15 pm -- Concert

Where: Gusman Hall
University of Miami
Coral Gables Campus

On Saturday evening, January 9, 2010, a Reception and Concert by Grammy Nominated Jazz and Blues Artist Marcia Ball, will be held at the Gusman Concert Hall, on the University of Miami Campus. All the proceeds will benefit the Steven E. Chaykin Fellowship at the Center for Ethics and Public Service, at the University of Miami School of Law.

More information about this event can be found on the web at http://www.chaykinfellowship.com/ or by calling Susan at (305) 374-7771. The Steven E. Chaykin Fellowship Trust is a 501(c)(3) corporation, and a portion of your donations may be tax deductible.

Ho hum

Well, it's a Friday in December. Awfully quiet around town.

I found interesting this Herald article about a state judge and a defendant being Facebook friends:

Several weeks ago, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Yvonne Colodny accepted a new friend request on the social networking site Facebook -- from Miami Commissioner Michelle Spence-Jones.

On Thursday, Spence-Jones was not a pal but a defendant whose grand theft case was on Colodny's docket for arraignment.

Colodny disclosed the tidbit to lawyers in the case, assuring them that she immediately unfriended the politician when she learned of her arrest on Nov. 13. Colodny also noted that she never once looked at Spence-Jones' Facebook page.

``We'll be leaving Facebook because of the issues arising from that website,'' Colodny said Thursday morning.

Defense lawyer Michael Band and prosecutor Richard Scruggs chuckled about the disclosure but had no problems with it. Band entered a plea of not guilty for Spence-Jones, who did not appear.

So, should judges abandon Facebook, Twitter, and Blogging altogether?

Other topics to consider on this Friday:

1. Who would release ladybugs at Art Basel?
2. Who would win in a fight between Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor?
3. Is Florida the ponzi scheme capitol of the world?
4. Here's a creative way to enforce a judgment -- have the Marshals seize paintings from Art Basel.