Judges are speaking out

More and more, judges are starting to speak out against the real problems in our criminal justice system.  This time it's Judge Mark Bennett saying that min-mans are the worst injustice he has seen while on the bench.  From CNN:

"I strongly disagree with that decision," the judge says firmly from the bench.
It is not the first time he has felt this way. Bennett says 80% of the mandatory sentences he hands down are unjust -- but that he is handcuffed by the law, which leaves no room for judicial discretion to consider a sentence based on individual circumstances of the defendant. 
Too often, Bennett says, low-level nonviolent drug addicts dealing to feed their habit end up being sentenced like drug kingpins.
Bennett says if he had the power, he would jail Rice for perhaps a year, or 18 months. Across the street in a state courthouse, she would have been put on probation, he says.
"I think it's a miscarriage of justice," Bennett says. "But you know people are entitled to their own sense of what justice is."
In the courtroom, the judge lowers his head and his voice.
"With the greatest of reluctance, I sentence you to 60 months," he says.

Breaking News -- Judge Lenard to take Senior Status

Breaking News -- District Judge Joan Lenard informed her colleagues today that she will be taking Senior Status on July 1, 2017. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 to fill Judge King's slot when he went senior. Before that, she was a state circuit and county judge, as well as a state prosecutor. This will create another open seat for President Trump to fill.  Congrats to Judge Lenard, and thank you for your service to the bench.

Summer is here (Updated with cell site cert grant)

UPDATE -- the Supreme Court granted cert in the cell-tower case today. Great news as the lower courts have gotten this one wrong. Hopefully it will be an opportunity to re-examine the third-party doctrine, which is the old rationale that the courts have used to justify the acquisition of the data without a warrant. As full-disclosure, I argued the en banc Davis case on this same issue.

School is just about out.
The Supreme Court is just about done.
Trump is tweeting again. And Neal Katyal is happy about it:

Its kinda odd to have the defendant in HawaiivTrump acting as our co-counsel.We don't need the help but will take it! pic.twitter.com/8ehqkLkOY2

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 5, 2017

What's up here in the SDFLA? Who is in trial? In the Miami old days, the courthouses literally shut down in August. Now only Raja's downtown keeps up the tradition.

Interesting article about DOJ

"It's a building full of prosecutors."  That's how this interesting article about the problems with DOJ starts. More:

Imagine an incoming president of the United States announcing that he or she would take advice on criminal justice matters exclusively from a Federal Defender’s office. Moreover, the new chief executive intends to put the defenders in charge of federal prisons, forensic science, and the clemency process. After all, the president might argue, the defenders understand federal criminal law from the ground up, have a rich understanding of the social conditions that lead to criminal behavior, and are the federal attorneys most responsible for ensuring individual Constitutional protections.

People would be outraged. Critics would complain that the defenders represent only one part of the justice system, and are inherently biased because their work in the courts is always on behalf of the accused.

Yet, somehow, the mirror image of that situation is our reality and goes largely unchallenged.

Despite an obvious conflict of interest, the Department of Justice evaluates clemency petitions, runs federal prisons, decides what forensic evidence to introduce in federal cases, and advises the president on criminal justice reform. And make no mistake — prosecutors dominate the agency, with the 93 United States Attorneys playing the leading role in setting policies across a range of issues and career prosecutors running most of the divisions.

We need you, Judges, to check DOJ.  More than ever.  

Judge Martin criticizes the SDFLA's practice of stacking 924(c) counts

Judge Martin criticizes the SDFLA's practice of stacking 924(c) counts in this concurrence:

Although many things about this case are troubling, perhaps most worrisome is that Mr. Hernandez might never have received this sentence if he had been sentenced in another part of the country. The Sentencing Commission also reported to Congress that the practice of "stacking" § 924(c) charges happens in very few districts. The Commission's data showed "no evidence that those offenses occur more frequently in those districts than in others." Id at 361. The Sentencing Commission thus concluded that "this geographic concentration is attributable to inconsistences in the charging of multiple violations of § 924(c)." Id. at 361-62. As it happens, the Southern District of Florida, where Mr. Hernandez was sentenced, is one of the districts recognized as exceptionally prolific in charging § 924(c) crimes. In fiscal year 2010, at least one in thirty-five of our entire nation's § 924(c) sentences came from the Southern District of Florida. Id at 276. The Southern District of Florida was one of only twelve districts in the country that reported having over 50 of these cases that year. Id. For the same period, 38 districts reported having ten or fewer. Id.

Another local practice that may come under fire in the near future is the shackling of all defendants in magistrate court.  The 9th Circuit just found the practice unconstitutional, which is in direct conflict with the 11th Circuit.  The Supreme Court may get the issue, but it's hard to disagree with the 9th's conclusion:

We must treat people with respect and dignity even though they are suspected of a crime. * * * The Constitution enshrines a fundamental right to be free of unwarranted restraints. Thus, we hold that if the government seeks to shackle a defendant, it must first justify the infringement with specific security needs as to that particular defendant. Courts must decide whether the stated need for security outweighs the infringement on a defendant’s right. This decision cannot be deferred to security providers or presumptively answered by routine policies. All of these requirements apply regardless of a jury’s presence or whether it’s a pretrial, trial or sentencing proceeding. Criminal defendants, like any other party appearing in court, are entitled to enter the courtroom with their heads held high. The policy that defendants challenged here isn’t presently in effect. Thus, although we hold that policy to be unconstitutional, we withhold the issuance of a formal writ of mandamus at this time.