Back to blogging

A big thanks to Jeff Marcus and MNR for stepping up and guest blogging last week. Good stuff!

Lots of goings on in the district last week with the progression of new judges and the elevation of Judge Robin Rosenbaum to the 11th Circuit, which should officially happen today. Congratulations to Judge Rosenbaum in advance!

She's still busy though, sentencing Rogerio Scotton to 9 years on Friday. He was the race car driver who represented himself during trial and engaged in all kinds of shenanigans, including claiming (falsely) that he had a sex tape to prove his marriage was legit. Paula McMahon of the Sun-Sentinel has more:

He also was found guilty of two counts of lying to immigration officials about his marriage to a Cuban woman. Jurors found that the Brazilian citizen entered into a sham marriage with Ailyn Mollinedo in July 2008 so that he could remain in the United States.

Mollinedo testified that the marriage was one of convenience. She said that she had never lived with Scotton and never had sex with him. Under U.S. immigration rules, foreign citizens who marry Cuban nationals may qualify for U.S. permanent resident status.

Prosecutors said that Scotton bullied Mollinedo and tried to control her by holding on to her green card. Mollinedo testified that she entered into the marriage as a favor to Scotton and stayed in it because he threatened her and her family if she told the truth.

Scotton insisted that the marriage was real and insisted many times in court that he had video footage of him having sex with Mollinedo that he wanted to show the judge and jury to prove that their relationship was real.

The judge said Friday that there was no evidence at all that any such video had ever existed and that Scotton's continued pretense in court — to her and the jury — was "absolutely inappropriate and obstructive."

The sex-tapes pretense was just one of many inappropriate acts committed by Scotton, the judge said.

"I don't think they were indiscretions," Rosenbaum said. "I think they were purposeful attempts to mislead this jury and this court."

A "Holder Effect" on Federal Sentencing?

Last summer at the ABA delegate meeting, Attorney General Holder made news when he said what many of us in this business have known for a long time, “too many Americans go to too many prisons for far too long, and for no truly good law enforcement reason.” Speech here.  After the nation's chief law enforcement officer joined the chorus for sentencing reform, some legal pundits wondered whether there would be any kind of "Holder Effect" driving down the length of federal sentences.

Sentencing guru and law professor Doug Berman thinks there just might be (post here) and speculates that perhaps judges are thinking even harder about the wisdom of imposing guideline sentences that call for lengthy incarcerations.  Three weeks ago, the U.S. Sentencing Commission issued its quarterly sentencing data report for the last quarter of FY 2013 (here) and Professor Berman has finished crunching the numbers.  His analysis reveals a small uptick in judge-initiated, below-guideline sentences to just over 20% of all federal sentences (up from 18% from early 2013) -- the largest percentage of below-guideline sentences for any quarter on record.  But the news is not all good.  The single largest determinant of a below-guideline sentence still remains the recommendation of the prosecutor on behalf of a cooperating defendant.  

Is it too much to hope that the Department backs up AG Holder's words with below-guideline recommendations for non-cooperators in appropriate cases?  Now that would be change we could believe in.  

Confirmation Update: More Good Judicial News

Today, Judges Darrin Gayles and Beth Bloom both were approved by voice vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Judge Robin Rosenbaum should have her vote in front of the full Senate completed sometime Monday. Best of luck to all three nominees.

Not Breaking News: It's Still Illegal to Carry a Concealed Gun in Florida During a Zombie Apocalpyse

From the "Only in Florida Department" on a slow news day.  The NRA is on high alert this week after a rare sunshine state legislative defeat.  The bill, which would have allowed Floridians to carry concealed firearms while evacuating during a state or local emergency, was voted down by the Florida Senate after Senator Dwight Bullard, apparent fan of The Walking Dead, sarcastically proposed the bill be amended to include any "act relating to the zombie apocalypse."  The Florida Sheriffs Association ("FSA") also opposed the bill, with one sheriff calling it "insane."  Standing its ground, the NRA issued a response alert (here) yesterday labeling the criticism of the FSA, the "barking of a cut dog."    

TRADITION! Supremes Endorse Prayers for Legislators 5-4

Yesterday, in Town of Greece v. Galloway (decision here), the Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and upheld the practice of opening monthly town board meetings in Greece, New York, with a prayer given by clergy.  The 5-4  decision upheld the practice—even though the prayers were usually led by Christian clergy—because it comported with the "tradition" of legislative prayer and did not coerce participation from non-adherents.  Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, opined that “legislative prayer lends gravity to public business, reminds lawmakers to transcend petty differences in pursuit of a higher purpose, and expresses a common aspiration to a just and peaceful society.” One can only imagine  what the state of good government would be without the time-honored tradition of legislative prayer . . . 

The Majority Opinion also found that the small town's omission of a local Buddhist temple and several nearby synagogues from the monthly prayer rotation was unintentional.  Justice Kagan, writing for the dissent, ignored the Buddhist temple angle, arguing instead that the monthly legislative prayers either should have been non-denominational in content or rotated among clergy of different faiths. 

More interesting was Adam Liptak's piece yesterday in the New York Times on a recent study concluding that both liberal and conservative Supreme Court Justices tend to vote in free speech cases for the "side they agree with."  Article here.