11th Circuit weighs in on Juan Carlos Chavez case

Rumpole has all of the details on the case and execution, which occurred yesterday. 

Chavez tried to get a stay from the 11th Circuit and the Supreme Court, both of which were denied.  The 11th Circuit opinion, written by Carnes, with a concurrence from Martin is here.

This is how Judge Carnes starts the majority opinion:

Juan Carlos Chavez kidnapped a nine-year-old boy at gunpoint, anally raped
him, verbally taunted and terrorized him, shot him to death, dismembered his body,
discarded his body parts in three planters, and then filled those planters with
concrete. See Chavez v. State, 832 So. 2d 730, 738–41 (Fla. 2002). Facing
imminent execution, Chavez has filed a lawsuit claiming that he may experience
unnecessary pain when the State of Florida executes him by lethal injection. After
conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Chavez’s request for a
temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or stay of execution. This is
his appeal.

That's some powerful writing.

Kitterman convicted and juror says that jury believed Rothstein

Paula McMahon interviewed one of the jurors, which is always fascinating.  Here's what she had to say:

Her attorney, Valentin Rodriguez Jr., said Kitterman and he were "deeply disappointed" but had no regrets about their trial strategy.
"We felt he was essential to our defense … the jury needed to see him and how manipulative he was and is," Rodriguez said.
Juror Susan Schweiger, of West Palm Beach, said she thought Rothstein was "pretty much" a credible witness and jurors believed most of what he said.
"I don't understand why he was called by the defense because he did not help her," Schweiger said. "I think he was, for the most part, telling the truth. I think he lied about some stuff because you don't change your nature totally like that but we believed him."
She said jurors did not hold Kitterman's battle with drug and alcohol addiction against her at all, but believed she was guilty of the crimes prosecutors accused her of committing.

Here are the results from the poll taken a few days ago, which the readers got right:


Should the defense have called Scott Rothstein to the stand in the Kitterman trial? (multiple answers allowed)
Selection  No, it's just way too risky 21 votes 
 No, it's better to point the finger at the prosecutor for not calling him 20 votes 
No, it was just a publicity stunt by the defense 4 votes 
Yes, you can dirty up the government by calling him 6 votes 
 Yes, you need to take such risks as the defense 9 votes 
Yes, it will make for a nice comparison when Kitterman testifies 11 votes 

Judge Robin Rosenbaum testifying live before the Senate now

Watch here.

UPDATE -- Judge Rosenbaum was just excused (9:31).  She did great.

Kitterman strikes back

She testified in her own defense yesterday, taking on Scott Rothstein.  From the DBR:

Kitterman testified when she joined the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler law firm in 2003, she immediately had to ward off Rothstein's sexual advances. She said he threatened to fire her numerous times and called her names like "idiot." Rothstein also had a knack for showing up at the same public place as Kitterman, such as restaurants."Mr. Rothstein had a temper. He was one of those people who had two sides," Kitterman said. "He was a very scary person, but he could be a very kind."Kitterman faces three counts of wire fraud conspiracy. Closing statements before Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley in West Palm Beach were expected Tuesday.Rothstein's mistreatment of women in his firm has been a key component to Kitterman's defense. The 12-member jury has 11 women on it.Kitterman said she never thought about filing a sexual harassment complaint against Rothstein with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."I was a new lawyer," she said. "I was scared. I just couldn't do something like that."Kitterman testified Rothstein's harassment of her ended when she went to the firm's only other equity partner, Stuart Rosenfeldt, in 2006 and asked to be reassigned so she didn't work directly with the firm's chairman.

The Sun-Sentinel also covers the case and Judge Hurley's ruling to allow the prosecution to cross Kitterman regarding her recovery from addiction:

But federal prosecutor Paul Schwartz's cross-examination cut directly to what prosecutors say was one of many motives Kitterman had to commit crimes at Rothstein's behest.
"You were addicted to alcohol and cocaine," Schwartz said to Kitterman.
Kitterman acknowledged she is a recovering addict and said that after "partying" on Aug. 7, 2007, she realized she had hit rock bottom and called her mother for help. Her mother called Rothstein, and he helped them find a four-week rehab program called "Challenges," Kitterman said.
When she returned to work a month later, Rothstein agreed to pay her salary for the time she had been absent, she said.
And when she told Rothstein that there was negative talk going around about her stint in rehab, Rothstein dispatched an email to the entire firm telling anyone who judged her poorly to resign by the next day.
Every year after that, she said, she thanked him on the anniversary of her gaining sobriety.
Prosecutors read aloud from an August 2009 email she sent Rothstein — just four months after the conference call and two months before the law firm imploded.
In it, she thanked him for his "friendship, love and support" and wrote that "words cannot express" the debt of gratitude she and her family owed to him.
Kitterman testified that she has remained clean and sober to this day. She said she is proud of her continued sobriety but embarrassed that she was in rehab and didn't raise the issue herself in court because she did not think it was relevant.
Senior U.S. District Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley told jurors he was allowing them to hear about Kitterman's drug and alcohol abuse because prosecutors believe it shows some of the reasons they say she was willing to commit crimes for Rothstein.

Will be interesting to see what the jury does.

Should the Kitterman defense have called Scott Rothstein?

That's the question that John Pacenti asks in today's DBR:

West Palm Beach attorney Valentin Rodriguez looked exhausted after verbally sparring with Scott Rothstein.
The disbarred law firm chairman and the mastermind of Florida's largest Ponzi scheme was called as a defense witness for Rodriguez's client, Boca Raton attorney Christina Kitterman.
"Scott Rothstein is not going to win this battle," Rodriguez said defiantly outside the West Palm Beach federal courthouse after the first day of Rothstein's testimony Wednesday. "But he can absolutely pick up on what you are trying to do."
Rothstein's well-documented arrogance made its inevitable appearance during questioning by Rodriguez, a polite-almost-to-a-fault attorney with a knack for quietly getting under the skin of witnesses.
...West Palm Beach attorney Peter Feldman, Rodriguez's co-counsel in Kitterman's case, said, "We knew the risk of calling him as he is unpredictable. I think that risk was outweighed by the jury being able to see him—live and in color—conducting his rock-star lifestyle."
Rodriguez called Rothstein over prosecution objections, bringing one of South Florida's most notorious figures into the public eye for the first time in four years in the first criminal trial centered on his $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme.

So, I will put the question to you to decide:

Should the defense have called Scott Rothstein to the stand in the Kitterman trial? (multiple answers allowed)
	No, it's just way too risky
	No, it's better to point the finger at the prosecutor for not calling him
	No, it was just a publicity stunt by the defense
	Yes, you can dirty up the government by calling him
	Yes, you need to take such risks as the defense
	Yes, it will make for a nice comparison when Kitterman testifies
pollcode.com free polls