Miami is new epicenter of corona

That’s the headline everywhere this morning.
Getting much less attention is how that affects the jails and prisons in South Florida.
Criminal defense lawyers know that the local facilities are a true disaster right now.
Clients are on 24-hour lockdown, unable to see family or counsel.
They are locked in their small cells with two other inmates and not permitted to leave.
There is extremely limited testing.
There are no masks.
It’s like being in a Super-Max while the virus creeps around the building.
Here’s one article that at least is covering the issue:

"The virus has already spread inside," Troitino said. "I am highly concerned for public safety. Our facility is in the middle of a community, a very vibrant community."

Internal documents NBC 6 obtained showed that on Tuesday, 11 inmates had the virus. Troitino says there was a big jump, indicating trouble.

"Yesterday alone we discovered in one area that held 60 inmates over 22 tested positive and that’s only after testing 28," he said. "We don’t know where this is going to lead but it looks catastrophic at the moment."

Troitino said officers were given inferior PPE gear. Warden Sylvester Jenkins denied that claim in an email.

Our judges have let a few folks out for compassionate release, but a lot more needs to be done. And Judges Williams and Cooke tried to deal with state and immigration facilities. But how about granting bail? Or contested CR motions? Waiving the 30-day administrative waiting requirement? And so on.

This was not a liberal Supreme Court Term

There's been a lot of commentary that the Supreme Court has shifted to the left with some decisions by Justices Roberts and Gorsuch.  But as Leah Litman points out in this Washington Post commentary, that is wrong.  Here's a portion of her piece:

The conservative legal movement obtained equally significant wins in a series of decisions involving religious freedom, simultaneously requiring that government treat religious institutions equally with nonsectarian ones and exempting religious entities or those with religious concerns from otherwise applicable rules, such as anti-discrimination laws.In one case, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, the court ruled that anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII and the Americans With Disabilities Act do not apply to religious teachers at religiously affiliated schools — dramatically broadening an exemption that had previously applied to those in the role of “ministers.” In another case involving access to contraceptive coverage, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the court held that the Trump administration could exempt employers with religious or even moral objections from the minor requirement that they notify their insurance providers about their objections to providing coverage.The court’s approach augured future wins to conservatives that will limit the scope of civil rights protections. For example, the court this year held that Title VII’s prohibition on job discrimination because of sex extends to gay and transgender workers. But the other rulings strongly indicate that the court will be wary about extending that protection in situations where employers claim religious objections.Even as the court expanded religious entities’ ability to opt out of anti-discrimination legislation, it widened the government’s obligation to provide public support for religious entities. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court, again in an opinion by Roberts, ruled that a program that provided scholarships for private schools had to make those scholarships equally available to religious schools.Previously, the court had held that a government program that provided help to private schools for playground resurfacing had to be made available to religious schools as well. The Montana case represented a dramatic expansion of requirements for direct funding of religious education, which the court said was mandated by the constitutional protection for free exercise of religion. The combined effect of the religion decisions is to require government support for institutions that are not required to comply with legal prohibitions on discrimination.Even in cases where the conservative argument lost, Republican politicians won. The court’s seemingly progressive decisions on social issues were electoral gifts to Republican politicians up for reelection. The public largely supports women’s ability to have an abortion, protection against deportation for the young immigrants known as “dreamers” and anti-discrimination rights for LGBTQ employees. The Supreme Court’s decisions on these issues prevent Republican politicians from having to defend unpopular rulings by Republican-appointed justices in the lead-up to the election.

Big day at SCOTUS

And I'm not talking about the tax return cases.  It's the "Indian country" case where Justice Gorsuch wrote in a 5-4 opinion that most of Oklahoma is mostly "Indian country," meaning that Oklahoma could not prosecute Jimcy McGirt for raping a child. 

Justice Gorsuch's conclusion:

The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes towithdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is
Reversed.

 And Chief Justice Roberts' dissent intro:

In 1997, the State of Oklahoma convicted petitioner Jimcy McGirt of molesting, raping, and forcibly sodomizing a four-year-old girl, his wife’s granddaughter. McGirt was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life in prison.  Today, the Court holds that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt — on the improbable ground that, unbeknownst to anyone for the past century, a huge swathe of Oklahoma is actually a Creek Indian reservation, on which the State may not prosecute serious crimes committed by Indians like McGirt.  Not only does the Court discover a Creek reservation that spans three million acres and includes most of the city of Tulsa, but the Court’s reasoning portends that there are four more such reservations in Oklahoma.  The rediscovered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of the State — 19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million people, only 10%–15% of whom are Indians.
Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out.  On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma.  The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law.
None of this is warranted. What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the “well settled” approach required by our precedents. Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U. S. 481, ___ (2016) (slip op., at 5).

Chief Justice Roberts got a few stitches last month...

... and people are freaking out even though he is fine. From the WP:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suffered a fall at a Maryland country club last month that required an overnight stay in the hospital, a Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed Tuesday night.

The 65-year-old chief justice was taken by ambulance to a hospital after the June 21 incident at the Chevy Chase Club, which was serious enough to require sutures. He stayed at the hospital overnight for observation and was released the next morning.

Roberts has twice experienced seizures, in 1993 and in 2007, but Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said doctors ruled out that possibility in the latest incident. Doctors believe he was dehydrated, she said.

Roberts did not publicly disclose the matter, and the court’s confirmation came in response to an inquiry from The Washington Post, which received a tip.

I'm sure the conspiracy theorists who are disappointed in his recent rulings will blame the fall for his joining the moderate justices in June Medical and others.

Meantime, in the 11th Circuit, new Chief Judge William Pryor issued this order concerning oral arguments, which includes the possibility of video oral arguments being streamed. Good stuff!

Burying documents

Prosecutors are in trouble again, this time in SDNY.  But this time, at least they dismissed the case -- even after trial (something most prosecutors, including in this District, refuse to do after misconduct has been proven).  Even though they have agreed to dismiss, the judge wants answers and strangely, the prosecutors are saying that their actions weren't all that bad.  From NPR:

Federal prosecutors under scrutiny for failing to turn over favorable evidence to a defendant told a judge they didn't act in bad faith, even as they disclosed internal emails in which they discussed whether they might try to "bury" a document they were giving to defense lawyers in a stack of other papers.

Prosecutors in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's Office made the disclosure in a letter to Judge Alison Nathan, who had demanded answers about the prosecution's failings and whether she had the power to impose sanctions against them.

The newly revealed email message described how one of the prosecutors found out that an important document hadn't been turned over to the defense, suggesting: "I'm wondering if we should wait until tomorrow and bury it in some other documents."

Prosecutors now say the document was not, in fact, "buried" because they turned it over less than 24 hours after the email discussion.

Their July 2 letter said the prosecutor who wrote the email was "endlessly chagrined about this chat" and added that "we believe it would go too far to condemn her for a Friday night lapse in thinking regarding a document that was in fact disclosed Saturday afternoon."

Defense lawyers for Ali Sadr Hashemi Nejad, who was charged with violating American sanctions laws against Iran, told the court they are "surprised and disappointed."

Attorney Brian Heberlig accused the prosecutors, and an official in the U.S. attorney's office who's tasked with promoting professional responsibility, of trying "to minimize, deflect, and deny, avoiding any acknowledgment or acceptance of responsibility for the government's obvious, repeated failures and its notable lack of candor," in his own letter to the court.

Squabbles over turning over documents, known as discovery, are common in federal criminal cases. But it's rare for a judge to demand that the government identify lawyers and supervisors involved in evidence-sharing lapses.

And it's even more rare for prosecutors to acknowledge such serious faults that they moved to dismiss a case they had already won.

"Any new trial would necessarily require a new team of (assistant U.S. attorneys) who would have to become familiar with every aspect of the investigation — not an easy task, particularly in a case that has already suffered from multiple breakdowns in communication that contributed to significant disclosure failures," prosecutors wrote to explain their rationale for abandoning the conviction.

Aside from the discussion of whether to "bury" a government exhibit, Sadr's lawyers said the prosecution team had engaged in even more "egregious wrongdoing" by misrepresenting a search of emails before the March 2020 trial began.

If a defendant had engaged in this behavior, a prosecutor would have no qualms charging him and seeking an enhancement for obstruction, and a judge would give it in a heartbeat.