John Errol Ferguson's execution stayed

He was set to be executed last night at 6pm, but the 11th Circuit stayed the execution at 8pm (?!!?) and the Supreme Court upheld the stay.  It's been a roller coaster though for the last few days.  From the AP:

Following a slew of conflicting court rulings, a federal appeals court has blocked the scheduled execution of a mass killer convicted of eight killings that jolted South Florida in the 1970s. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the stay.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision Tuesday came during a flurry of legal decisions over claims that 64-year-old John Errol Ferguson suffers from mental illness so severe he cannot be executed. Ferguson, a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions he's the "prince of God," had faced a planned lethal injection at 6 p.m. Tuesday in Florida's death chamber.
The Supreme Court rejected an earlier Ferguson emergency appeal Tuesday – as did the 11th Circuit – but the high court would not agree to the state of Florida's request to overturn the later ruling. The appeals court set a schedule for motions that will likely delay the execution at least until the first week of November, if not longer.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office argued in court papers that the late ruling "makes a mockery of the state's compelling interest in finality" in Ferguson's case. He has been on death row for 34 years.

Judge Carnes, Florida's death penalty, and Shakespeare

Remember that case in which Judge Martinez found Florida's death penalty unconstitutional under Ring?

The 11th Circuit, per Judge Carnes and joined by Judges Marcus and Pryor, decided today that the death penalty was fine and dandy even though it's pretty clear that Judge Martinez is right and that the Florida death penalty can't survive Ring.

But, the 11th says that we have to wait for the Supreme Court to explicitly say so. Judge Carnes starts off this way:

Confident that he knew what the future would bring, one of Shakespeare’s
characters boasted that “[t]here are many events in the womb of time which will be
delivered.” William Shakespeare, Othello, Act I, Scene 3, lines 412–13. On the
subject of lower courts predicting that the Supreme Court is going to overrule one
of its own decisions, however, Judge Hand cautioned against “embrac[ing] the
exhilarating opportunity of anticipating a doctrine which may be in the womb of
time, but whose birth is distant.” Spector Motor Serv. v. Walsh, 139 F.2d 809,
823 (2d Cir. 1943) (Hand, J., dissenting). The Supreme Court has made Hand’s
warning a clear command by repeatedly instructing lower courts that when one of
its earlier decisions with direct application to a case appears to rest on reasons
rejected in a more recent line of decisions, we must follow the directly applicable
decision and leave to the high Court the prerogative of overruling its own
decisions. As will become apparent, those instructions are dispositive of the
State’s appeal from the grant of habeas corpus relief in this case.

Well, this case is off to the Supreme Court and my money is on Judge Martinez getting vindicated.

Judge Bandstra to JAMS

The DBR covers Judge Bandstra's departure to JAMS.  Good luck to him!  There are some good stories about him in the article:

Bandstra’s legal experience includes three years with Katten Muchin in Chicago followed by three more as an assistant U.S. attorney trying 30 cases under Stanley Marcus. He also spent three years at Fowler White Burnett handling medical malpractice for firm shareholder and co-founder Henry Burnett.

“Henry’s my mentor and the person I respect most,” Bandstra said.

He said his experience as a magistrate can help sparring sides see their legal situation more realistically.

“One of the things I’ve enjoyed most as a judge is the settlement of cases where I’ve had some input,” Bandstra said.

After South Florida’s district judges chose Bandstra as a magistrate in 1989, U.S. District Judge Eugene Spellman telephoned to welcome him with two interesting details.

“First of all, you weren’t my first choice,” Bandstra recalled him saying. “That took me back a little bit.

“The other thing was, ‘You should know you got the judges’ vote on the first ballot, which has never happened.’ ”



The debate last night was a good way to show how important facial expressions are during trial.  In the first debate, Obama lost not so much for what he said, but mostly because he kept looking down, writing, and shaking his head.

 Last night, Romney got trounced in part because he had this weird grin on his face all night which didn't seem appropriate.

 Plus, there was this:

Monday news & notes

1. Who wants to go to Pakistan? Apparently the defense does in what was dubbed the "Pakistani Taliban" case when it was filed lots of publicity but which seems much different now.

Jay Weaver covers the government's opposition here:  

Two South Florida Muslim clerics — a father and son separated by more than 50 years in age — are struggling to persuade a Miami federal judge to allow their lawyers to travel to Pakistan to question alleged Taliban sympathizers who might help their defense against terrorism charges. Lawyers for Hafiz Khan and Izhar Khan, former imams of mosques in Miami and Margate, have already lost their first bid to travel with federal prosecutors to the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to take depositions from five witnesses who do not want to come to Miami to testify at the upcoming trial. Among the potential witnesses are two other Khan family members and another suspected Taliban supporter who were accused in the same case of conspiring to aid the Taliban with money and guns. 

Last week, U.S. District Judge Robert Scola rejected the defense’s initial deposition plan — which was strongly opposed by federal prosecutors — as “unsafe and impractical.” But Scola left open the possibility for the defense’s alternative: allowing the Khans’ lawyers to question the witnesses at a hotel such as the Marriott in Islamabad in a live, videotaped deposition with the prosecutors participating from Miami. “If there is a way for you to take their deposition, I’m going to let you do it,” Scola said, setting the stage for a final hearing Oct. 29. The clock is ticking, however, because the “material-support” trial that initially drew national headlines is scheduled for early January. Bottom line, the defense said: No deposition, no fair trial.


 2. How much time should Rajat Gupta get? He went to trial and was convicted. The government is asking for 97-121 months and the defense is asking for probation.

 The trial penalty has become so absurd in our system. Gupta, I'm sure, was offered very little or no jail time if he had pleaded guilty.

 Does he really deserve 10 years because he went to trial? My prediction is that Judge Jed Rakoff sentences him to 36 months.

Here's the Bloomberg article on the case. If you are interested in the sentencing memos, you can check them out here.

Judge Jordan can't wait to see Lincoln

From his opinion yesterday: 

Following the 1860 election, President Abraham Lincoln chose a cabinet “comprised of enemies and opponents,” including three men who had been his “chief Case: 11-13117 Date Filed: 10/18/2012 Page: 1 of 29 rivals for the Republican nomination,” because they “‘were the strongest men in the party’” and he “‘had no right to deprive the country of their services.’” DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN, TEAM OF RIVALS: THE POLITICAL GENIUS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN 319 (2005). When she was elected in 2008 as superior court clerk of Lumpkin County, Georgia, Rita Harkins did not emulate President Lincoln; in her first official act as clerk, Ms. Harkins dismissed her co-worker and former political rival, Sarah Jane Underwood, whom she had defeated in the Republican primary. 

The issue we address is whether this firing violated Ms. Underwood’s First Amendment rights. In light of our precedent, we conclude, as did the district court, that it did not.

In other news, do you think that a prosecutor should be able to use a booking photo in closing argument with the words GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY superimposed on top?  The Washington State Supreme Court said no in a 5-4 opinion. Via The News Tribune:


The Washington State Supreme Court has overturned four felony convictions of a Pierce County man, saying a deputy prosecutor violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial by superimposing the words, “guilty, guilty, guilty,” over the man’s photo during a PowerPoint presentation in closing arguments.
The state’s high court, on a 5-4 vote, sent Edward Michael Glasmann’s case back to Superior Court for a new trial.
“The prosecutor’s misconduct was flagrant, ill intentioned and we cannot conclude with any confidence that it did not have an effect on the outcome of the trial,” Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the majority in an opinion released Thursday.
Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said he thought the majority made a bad call.
“The majority opinion is correct in recognizing that prosecutors are quasi-judicial figures,” he said. “We have a duty to seek justice and be fully professional. The opinion takes a strange turn, though, in finding reversible misconduct because a former deputy prosecutor superimposed the word ‘guilty’ on a PowerPoint slide with a booking photo.
“This was unnecessarily melodramatic, but did not affect the outcome.”

Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/10/18/2337016/pierce-man-gets-a-new-trial-over.html#storylink=cpy