Heroes vs. Villians

Update-- I guess this is Justice Kennedy day. Today he wrote for the Supreme Court that a life sentence for a juvenile was unconstitutional where the defendant did not commit murder. He cited evolving standards of decency and also world standards. It's a fascinating read, especially in light of his comments on Friday regarding empathy and sentencing. More to follow.

Justice Kennedy doesn't like to pick sides or call himself the swing voter. On Friday, I posted John Pacenti's coverage of Kennedy's speech to the Palm Beach County Bar Association. His quote about being the swing voter is traveling around the blogosphere: "It has to me the imagery of these wild spatial gyrations. I don't swing around the cases. They swing around me. My jurisprudence is quite consistent."

In addition to Pacenti, the Palm Beach Post covered the talk here and the Palm Beach Daily News here:

"The Constitution doesn’t just belong to a bunch of judges and lawyers — it’s yours,” he told the students. “The principles of the Constitution and of freedom must be taught ... That’s how our heritage is handed down from one generation to the next.”
Kennedy told the group about a friend of his who had been an appellate judge for six months, when he listened to an argument from an attorney about how the trial judge had erred. The attorney closed his argument by saying the trial judge was new and had only been on the bench for three months.
“My friend leaned over and said, ‘It may interest you to know I’ve only been on this bench for six months,’” Kennedy said. “And without missing a beat, the lawyer said, ‘It’s surprising, your honor, how much a judge can learn in 90 days.’”
While speaking before a group of attorneys and judges, Kennedy was asked how he reads the enormous amount of briefs.
Kennedy told them he sometimes takes difficult cases home to read as he listens to opera music.
“I sometimes have one-opera cases and sometimes two-opera cases,” he said. “An attorney in the room raised his hand and said, ‘I have a rule like that when I write those briefs. I have a one-six-pack brief and a two-six-pack brief.’”

Justice Kennedy speaks to PB Bar Association

John Pacenti has the details here. The whole thing is definitely worth a read, but here is a part:

Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Kennedy voted with the majority 92 percent of the time in the 2008-2009 term. On the 23 decisions decided by 5-4 votes, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. “I don’t swing around the cases. They swing around me,” he said. “My jurisprudence is quite consistent.”

In one of his many jokes during the speech, Kennedy was asked what makes an “activist court.” He replied, “An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don’t like.”

But Kennedy also was serious. He said it’s important to teach the young about the Constitution and its importance because the law in other countries is considered a threat, not a blessing for society.

When asked if empathy has a place in judicial rulings at the highest levels, Kennedy said absolutely. He said prison sentences in the United States are eight times longer than in other Western countries for the same crimes.

“If lack of empathy means you close your eyes to the law’s decree, that’s just silly,” Kennedy said. “Capital defendants in a single windowless 12-by-8 cell for 20 years waiting for their sentence. You are not supposed to know this when you are a judge?” He said mandatory minimum laws passed by state legislatures are cost foolish and have created a failing penal system. In conclusion, Kennedy said he expects the dynamic to change among justices when Kagan, if confirmed, joins the court. “It’s a new table. It’s a new court,” he said.

It's Friday!

Took a quick trip to the Middle District yesterday. I think I can fly to Tampa, drive to the Pinelas county jail, see my client, drive back to the airport, and fly back to Miami quicker than I can walk across the street to FDC and see a client there.

I know this is off-topic, but this is too good to pass up -- from the Miami Herald: "Principal tells parent to 'eat s--- and die'." Whoops! The dreaded e-mail mistake where you hit reply instead of forward.

If you haven't had enough Kagan coverage, here's what Tom Goldstein says are 3 overlooked issues:

First, as Nina Totenberg first reported, Kagan signed this letter in 2005 strongly protesting Lindsay Graham’s amendment to limit the Guantanamo Bay detainees’ access to federal courts. This is far more direct evidence of Kagan’s views on executive powers in foreign affairs than the isolated statement in her confirmation hearings that has been invoked as supposedly showing her support for Bush-era policies. The letter should assuage liberal opponents, but raises the question whether Graham and other moderate Republicans may vote against her.

Second, as the New York Times reported, Miguel Estrada unambiguously endorsed Kagan’s confirmation. Estrada is a hero of conservatives, given his treatment when he was nominated by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit. The endorsement gives Democrats and the White House ammunition to argue that Republicans are simply playing politics.

Third, as Jim Oliphant reported, Kagan signed a memo while working in the White House stating that President should sign an assault weapons ban. And as Greg Stohr of Bloomberg has reported, while clerking for Thurgood Marshall, Kagan wrote that she was “not sympathetic” to the claim that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban violates the Second Amendment; that is the claim the Supreme Court accepted in the Heller case. Both statements by Kagan reflected the position of her employers – the White House and Justice Marshall – and her brief statement as a law clerk about the Second Amendment claim (literally a single short sentence) represented the view of every court of appeals. But those statements will almost certainly be enough to cause the NRA, with its considerable influence, to formally oppose the nomination.

Old debate pops up again

Jay Weaver is reporting that Judge Lenard didn't accept the plea deals in a health-care fraud case in which patient files were sold to personal injury lawyers. Judge Lenard is concerned that the punishment agreed to does not fit the crime:

Ruben E. Rodriguez, the ringleader, would face up to 12 years in prison. His wife, Maria Victoria Suarez, 52, would face up to five years.
``These charges are much too serious -- much too serious for our community,'' Lenard said. ``Violations of the law in the healthcare industry have become too much the norm [in Miami-Dade]. There are real victims here.''
Rodriguez, 62, who attended the hearing in a wheelchair because of poor health, has pleaded guilty to two conspiracy offenses and aggravated identity theft.
He admitted he stole Jackson records of patients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and medical diagnoses and sold them to several attorneys in exchange for kickbacks. He also admitted stealing records from an ambulance company dating back to 1995.
In exchange for the confidential information, lawyers paid Rodriguez hundreds of thousands of dollars after settling injury claims on the patients' behalfs, prosecutors say. One unidentified personal-injury attorney wrote 27 checks totaling $85,250 to a shell company incorporated by Rodriguez between 2006 and 2009.
On Tuesday, Lenard said she could not decide whether to accept Rodriguez's guilty plea until she reviewed sentencing guidelines for his offenses to make sure the penalties were tough enough.

We've discussed before the issue of whether judges should be able to reject plea deals -- the last time it came up was in the Robles case:

Query -- does a federal judge have the power to reject this sort of deal? Because this is a charge bargain deal, can't the government just dismiss the other counts on its own, leaving only the ten year maximum count? I think the real question is whether the government will have the heart to do this after Judge Gold has said he will not approve the deal. If in our adversarial system of justice the prosecution believes that a deal is fair, should a judge step in?

From another post on the subject:

The Louis Robles case has pitted prosecutors against the judiciary. The government and the defense had worked out a deal for Robles -- 10 years in prison plus restitution -- and that deal had the blessing of the receiver and almost all of the victims.Judge Gold, however, won't accept the deal, saying it's too lenient. The government recently filed a 16 page motion for reconsideration explaining why the plea made sense. Judge Gold denied that motion, which now leaves the government with two choices. It can try a case that neither party wants to try. Or it can dismiss the counts that carry more than a 10 year maximum, leaving Judge Gold with no choice but to sentence Robles to 10 years, even after a trial.Oftentimes, defense lawyers complain that sentencing is driven by prosecutors and that it should be left to judges to sentence, not executive officers. In this case, prosecutorial discretion is important in capping the sentence.Any thoughts on what the U.S. Attorney's office should do? Should they defer to the judge or stand up for their position?

What do you all think of this issue?

Joe Cool conviction affirmed...

... in a short non-published opinion, without oral argument. It seems to me that an appellate court should at least have oral argument after a trial that results in a life sentence. I mean, it's just a half an hour to hear argument. Just saying.

In other 11th Circuit news, the court found that a district court errs by admitting a defendant's MySpace page. But, of course, it was harmless, and the defendant's conviction and sentence (of 2005 months) was affirmed. From the opinion:

The MySpace evidence is not evidence of identity: that is, evidence that Phaknikone robbed
banks like a gangster. The subscriber report proved nothing more than
Phaknikone’s nickname, the only name by which Lavivong had already testified he
knew Phaknikone. The profile photographs accompanying the subscriber report
and the photograph of Phaknikone and his ex-wife at a social event offer nothing to
support a modus operandi about the bank robberies. The photograph of a tattooed
Phaknikone, his face completely visible, in a car, holding a handgun sideways in
his right hand, and with a child as a passenger, proves only that Phaknikone, on an
earlier occasion, possessed a handgun in the presence of a child. Although the
photograph may portray a “gangster-type personality,” the photograph does not
evidence the modus operandi of a bank robber who commits his crimes with a
signature trait. The MySpace evidence is not evidence of a modus operandi and is
inadmissible to prove identity.

Because the MySpace evidence fails the first requirement of the Miller test,
we need not address its second and third requirements. The MySpace evidence is
classic evidence of bad character, which was offered by the government to prove
only “action in conformity therewith.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The government
wanted the jury to infer that, because Phaknikone is willing to publish these kinds
of photographs online, under an incendiary alias, he is a gangster who is likely to
rob banks. The district court abused its discretion by admitting the MySpace
evidence.

I have always wondered what would happen if a district court read this opinion and then said -- well, I know it's error, but it's harmless so I will admit it.

The comments were active yesterday in the debate about the probation office. Good stuff.