The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Another one of the greats passed away today -- Mel Black. He was a great guy and a wonderful criminal defense lawyer (for almost 60 years!) That's him below with his client after a big NG. He always had time to talk to you about a case or a problem. And I loved that he recently took a year on a ship around the world. I'll miss him.
Louis D. Brandeis once wrote that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants."And the 11th Circuit just gave that sentiment a constitutional seal of approval, ruling that the Corporate Transparency Act doesn't violate the constitution. The act, passed in 2020, requires companies to disclose their "beneficial owners" to the Treasury Department (beneficial owners being people who exercise substantial control over an entity or who control at least twenty-five percentage of its ownership interests). The idea was to combat corporate shell games that allow bad guys to launder money, etc.
The panel (Judge Brasher writing) said (1) Congress could pass the law under the Commerce Clause and (2) the law doesn't facially violate the Fourth Amendment (Brasher noted that the Supreme Court had rejected Fourth Amendment challenges to similar uniform reporting requirements, including one that requires banks to report domestic currency transactions above a certain amount).
Feels like a fact pattern you might get on your Con law exam. And because it's a Commerce Clause case, you know that had to cite to that old standby, Wickard v. Filburn. You know, the one about the farmer and his intrastate wheat.
Opinion here.
This one is against the BBC. From the NY Times:
President Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion on Monday evening over the editing in a documentary that the British broadcaster said had left the “mistaken impression” that he called for violent action before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.
In a 46-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Mr. Trump accused the BBC of defaming him and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He demanded $5 billion for each offense.
In a statement, the president’s legal team said that the lawsuit was designed to hold the British network accountable for what it described as wrongdoing.
The future of the False Claims Act (FCA) hangs in the balance after a pivotal oral argument (before Judges Luck, Branch, Moreno) in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals this past Friday.
In United States ex. rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, a three-judge panel grappled with a challenge that strikes at the very heart of the statute: Do the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which allow private whistleblowers to sue on behalf of the government, violate the U.S. Constitution?
The oral argument offered a fascinating glimpse into the judicial tug-of-war between centuries of legal tradition and evolving theories on executive power. Here are the key takeaways from the arguments.
The appeal stems from a first-of-its-kind ruling by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, who declared the qui tam system unconstitutional earlier this year. Her reasoning—echoing concerns raised recently by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas—was that private relators exercise significant executive power without being properly appointed as officers of the United States, a violation of the Appointments Clause.
On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit panel appeared torn between two competing narratives: the text of the Constitution versus the long history of the American legal system.
Judge Robert J. Luck’s questioning suggested a hesitation to overturn a system that has existed since the nation’s founding. He repeatedly pressed defense counsel to explain why qui tam actions should be deemed unconstitutional now, given that they have been present in the U.S. for roughly 250 years.
Judge Luck noted that historical records imply President George Washington and other founders did not view qui tam litigation as conflicting with executive powers. "It looks like some of this was sort of contemplated by some of our founders, was it not?" he asked, searching for any Supreme Court precedent that strictly requires executive appointment for non-government relators.
Judge Elizabeth L. Branch pushed back against the DOJ’s reliance on past circuit court consensus. When the government argued that courts have routinely upheld the FCA for decades, Judge Branch interjected, noting that those decisions are dated.
"It's been about 25 years, and we have some recent statements from the U.S. Supreme Court," she said, alluding to the 2023 opinion in Polansky where Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett signaled interest in revisiting the constitutionality of the whistleblower system.
The oral argument highlighted the stark difference in how each side views the role of a whistleblower:
The Defense (Challenging the FCA): Kannon K. Shanmugam, representing the defendants, argued that the modern FCA (strengthened in 1986) is a different beast from early American statutes. He contended that today's relators hold the power of an "unaccountable office," forcing the government to expend resources and seeking massive penalties without executive oversight.
The Relator/DOJ (Defending the FCA): Counsel for the whistleblower and the DOJ argued that relators are simply private litigants, not government officers. Tejinder Singh, representing the whistleblower, emphasized that relators lack true state power: "No one's handing them a windbreaker and a gun... They're litigating in the same way that a private fraud litigant would litigate."
If the Eleventh Circuit affirms Judge Mizelle’s ruling, it would create a circuit split and almost certainly fast-track the issue to the Supreme Court.
Ever heard someone mention the "Atkins Building" or "Atkins Courthouse"? It's located across from the Wilkie D. and it's where many of our magistrate judges currently sit. The courthouse is named after Judge C. Clyde Atkins. A tribute from UF law school described him as a "champion of civil rights and a defender of those who were less fortunate." Among his important rulings were his orders desegregating Miami-Dade County Public schools (Pate v. Dade County School Board, 315 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. Fla. 1969).
FBA write-up below.
By John R Byrne
Cue the “Welcome Back, Kotter” theme music. After a three-month-plus long civil RICO trial in state court, DOM is back at his desk at SDFLA Blog HQ. The verdict? A mistrial. Oof. Then again, any day your corporate client isn’t told by a jury to stroke a check for $1.2 billion has to be a good one. The trial ended with some drama, with one juror accusing another of misconduct in a note apparently crafted with the help of AI (the judge concluded the allegations were not credible). Oh, and jurors dressed up like Dr. Seuss characters from “The Cat and the Hat” on Halloween. Federal judges with Halloween trials take note! Article on the trial is here.
A different deliberative body had no issue delivering its verdict on Saturday. The College Football Playoff Committee released the greatly anticipated 12 team playoff slate. No lack of drama here either. Like a high stakes version of musical chairs, there were three teams (Miami, Notre Dame, or Alabama) fighting for two at-large playoff seats. The CFP went with Miami and Alabama.
Miami was a no brainer. But putting Alabama in over ND was just criminal. Alabama had three losses and looked awful over the past month, losing to Oklahoma, squeaking by a terrible Auburn team, and getting walloped by Georgia on Saturday. What drove the committee’s decision? Basic SEC bias? Fear of the potential wrath of powerful SEC commissioner Greg Sankey? A five-minute Zoom call with universally loved federal judge and diehard Alabama fan James I. Cohn? These are the questions we want answers to!
Today we're featuring Judge William O. Mehrtens. Longtime district court judge (served 15 years). Double Gator. Served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy during World War II. Best remembered for his important opinion backing treasure hunter Mel Fischer in his dispute with the State of Florida over the wreck of a 17th-century Spanish galleon carrying hundreds of millions in treasure. Case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which mostly affirmed Mehrtens's ruling. Check out that opinion here. I like this quote: "As grave as the perils of sea are and were, the gravest perils to the treasure itself came not from the sea but from two unlikely sources. Agents of two governments, Florida and the United States, who have the highest responsibility to protect rights and property of citizens, claimed the treasure as belonging to the United States and Florida."
FBA write up below.
Judge William O. Mehrtens was nominated by President Lyndon B. Johnson and served on the district court from 1965-1980. Prior to his judicial service, Judge Mehrtens served in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II. In Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel, 459 F. Supp. 507 (S.D. Fla. 1978), Judge Mehrtens ruled that Treasure Salvors, Inc. retained exclusive rights to treasure, including “gold, silver, artifacts, and armament” salvaged from the sunken Spanish vessel Nuestra Señora de Atocha, rejecting Florida’s competing ownership claims.
A jury in Miami, Florida, on Monday found an online commentator liable for defaming rapper Megan Thee Stallion and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on her by coordinating with the rapper who’s in prison for shooting her five years ago.
Milagro Cooper also was found liable for promoting a digitally altered sexual depiction of Megan.
Jurors awarded Megan $75,000 in damages, though that will drop to $59,000 if U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga agrees with the jury Milagro qualifies as a media defendant and dismisses the defamation claim because Megan’s lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, didn’t notify her before they sued her.
Milagro’s total amount due could increase substantially, however, because the sexual depiction claim allows Megan to recoup attorney fees.
If you are more interested in Megan Thee Stallion's courtroom outfits, she posted each of them at her IG page:
"The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas and the Rule of Law."
"When I was a newer on the bench, a friend asked me, 'Now that you’ve been a judge for a few years, do you have any particular advice?' I replied, 'Always sit with your back to the wall.'"
Whoa.
Curious whether the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit should have foreseen that combustible panel mix coming.
Meghann Cuniff has everything Megan Thee Stallion, the defamation trial before Judge Altonaga. Closing arguments will be tomorrow (Monday).
Here's the latest -- Megan is on the stand and Miami's Jeremy McLymont is crossing (John O'Sullivan from Quinn put her on):
Jeremy McLymont, an attorney in Miami, Florida, focused on Megan’s testimony that she was not drunk and that she had nerve damage in her left foot, despite a doctor’s report that said there was no “nerve involvement” in her left foot.
He also emphasized eyewitness Sean Kelly’s testimony about two women fighting as he implies Megan lied when she testified Lanez shot her and implies that the gunfire came from her now-former friend Kelsey Harris as Milagro has contended.
McLymont also implied Megan is wrongly accusing Milagro when Megan says Lanez told Milagro to say Megan is an alcoholic.
“That’s your opinion?” McLymont asked.
“Yes,” Megan answered.
“It’s not a proven fact, right?” McLymont asked.
“It can’t be proven because we can’t see the messages,” Megan said, referring to the thousands of texts deleted by Milagro in violation of a legal notice.
“It’s not a proven fact, but you’re stating it as though it’s a fact?” McLymont asked.
“Just like Milagro stated that it’s a fact that I lied about Tory shooting me,” Megan answered.
“So are you defaming Tory Lanez and Milagro Cooper when you say that it’s your opinion that Milagro Cooper is getting information from Tory Lanez?” McLymont asked.
“No, I’m not defaming her or him,” Megan answered.
“Alright. But Ms. Cooper is defaming you when she gives her opinion?” McLymont asked.
“Yes, and presents it as facts,” Megan answered.
Megan’s lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP didn’t object to her being asked to give a legal conclusion.
McLymont, a licensed attorney in Florida since 2018, took a slow and conversational approach to his cross-examination of Megan. At one point, he implied Megan is suing Milagro out of jealousy, emphasizing that Milagro “has some sort of relationship with Tory Lanez.”
“You do not like that?” McLymont asked.
“I don’t care about whatever you’re trying to ask me. What I care about is Tory giving this woman information to say about me, to lie about me, about the trial. That’s what I care about,” Megan answered.
McLymont at one point told Megan, “So I’m asking questions. All I need is just simple answers” when Megan asked what he was getting at, but he mostly didn’t push back when Megan responded with her own questions. He said rappers Meek Mill and Drake support Lanez and Megan asked, “Are you saying that make it OK” for Milagro to harass her.
“No, I just want to make sure that we’re actually pinpointing the cause of any emotional distress” and not blaming it on Milagro, McLymont told Megan.
McLymont described Milagro as someone who “has the least amount of influence,” and Megan asked why he thinks that.
“Is it because she’s a woman and the rest of everybody is a man?” Megan asked.
“Well, she’s not famous, right?” McLymont answered.
Megan said Milagro is famous “for talking crap about me online.”
McLymont and Megan were discussing Milagro’s level of fame when U.S. District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga said, “Mr. McLymont, you’re an attorney” and told him to stop speaking when the witness speaks.
“I’ve never heard of that, judge,” McLymont said.
The judge chuckled and said, “I’m telling you that.”
To me, the COVID-19 Pandemic feels like ages ago. But lawsuits arising from the pandemic are still making their way through the legal system. Just a few days ago, the Eleventh Circuit held that a county ordinance closing all public and private beaches during the early COVID-19 pandemic was a per se physical taking of beachfront owners’ property under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Lagoa's opinion is a refresher on takings law, including the differences between regulatory takings and physical takings (the line can be blurry). In short, there's "no COVID exception to the Takings Clause."
The opinion also has colorful details, including this sequence. A man is walking on his private beachfront property during the early days of the pandemic along with a family friend and their respective children. A lifeguard radios the Walton County Sheriff's Office to report them. Deputies arrive "almost immediately" and one tells the man and his party that, if they don't leave the beach, the deputies will arrest them. The man tells him he owns the property but the deputy says that doesn't matter. When the man and his friend turned to leave, the deputy asked for their names and told them that if police did "catch" them on his beach again, the police would take them "downtown."
"Downtown" doesn't get used enough as a stand-in for a police station. But as it turns out, the Walton County Sheriff's Office's main operations and jail are located at 10 Sheriff Circle in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, which is not a classic downtown business district.
Full opinion here.
Below is the portrait of Judge Charles B. Fulton. He served as Chief Judge in our district for 11 years (from 1966-1977)! A 1982 statutory amendment limited Chief Judge terms to seven years. Sharing that in case the question comes up in your local pub trivia contest. FBA write up below.
Before she played it, Hayrapetian said she wanted “to acknowledge how disturbing this is.”
“Imagine having to sit in court and watch this play for a room full of strangers. That’s what we’re asking Megan to do today, but you need to see it to understand what Milagro Cooper promoted,” said Hayrapetian, an associate in Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP’s Los Angeles office.
The approximately 45-second video included commentary from Milagro as she played it for viewers on her live stream. “Watch how this post jump … I just liked it and I tweeted ‘go to my likes.’”
“I apologize to everyone in this courtroom for having to see that, especially to Megan,” Hayrapetian said. “But Milagro Cooper made the choice to promote it.”
Hayrapetian began her opening by playing audio of the gunshots that Daystar “Tory Lanez” Peterson fired at Megan on July 12, 2020. She told jurors he was convicted in December 2022, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions last week. She played an excerpt of Milagro discussing Megan that begins, “At the end of the day, a bitch lying on somebody is low down. So believe what the fuck you want to believe.” Milagro goes on to say she wants to “slap” Megan.
“This case is about someone who wasn’t there that night, the defendant, Milagro Cooper. She didn’t see the fear or the blood or the gun, but she saw something else: Her shot had the spotlight,” Hayrapetian said. “This case is about what Milagro Cooper did with her shot at the spotlight.”
Hayrapetian said jurors will learn “how she turned attacking Megan into her brand, how she coordinated with Tory Lanez and his team, how she built her platform by tearing Megan down.”
She said the case “is not about whether Tory shot Megan. That has already been decided: He did. This case is about Milagro Cooper’s continued effort to undo what’s already been done, to free Tory.”
The first thing Milagro’s lawyer Nathacha Bien-Aime told jurors in her opening was, “Yes. Megan Pete was shot.” But she said “whether he did or not, that case, that tragedy, that happened in California.”
“The plaintiff desperately wants to drive a California criminal trial across the country, to replay it for you here in Miami, Florida,” Bien-Aime said.
Here's the 2-1 opinion. Judge Branch wrote the majority (with Grant joining). District Judge Calvert dissented on an interesting interstate commerce issue related to the kidnapping counts.
Courthouse news summarizes it here:
The 11th Circuit on Friday upheld the convictions of the three white men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery five years ago after chasing the 25-year-old Black man down the streets of a Georgia subdivision.
In a split opinion, the circuit judges ruled that sufficient evidence supported their convictions.
Travis McMichael, his father Greg McMichael, and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan were convicted in February 2022 of a federal hate crime and attempted kidnapping in Ahmaud Arbery’s killing and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, they argued prosecutors failed to prove they acted with racist intent.
A three-judge panel rejected that claim, finding ample evidence of racial animus in the men’s private conversations and social media posts, which showed longstanding prejudice toward Black people and support for vigilante justice.
***
The men also asked the court to toss the attempted kidnapping charges, claiming the streets of the neighborhood were not a public road.
“Copious evidence supports the jury’s underlying finding that Glynn County ‘provided or administered’ the streets of Satilla Shores,” U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch wrote in the opinion.
Branch and U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant, both Trump appointees, rejected the men’s arguments and found sufficient circumstantial evidence for jurors to conclude they intended to block Arbery’s access to a public road by chasing him with guns and boxing him in with their pickup trucks.
The panel noted the streets were central to the crime, as the entire pursuit and shooting unfolded along the roads of Satilla Shores. Branch wrote it was reasonable to infer that, without Arbery’s use of those streets, the specific crime would not have occurred.
“The jury had ample evidence that defendants attempted to kidnap Arbery for a benefit,” Branch wrote.
“Based on their posts supporting vigilantism and associating black people with criminality, the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendants acted to boost their reputation as neighborhood crime-stoppers, to remove suspected criminals from their streets, or to promote their sense of vigilante justice. Or, based on their racist and often violent language, the jury could have reasonably inferred that they acted to gain some personal satisfaction by inflicting violence on a black man,” she added.
The three-judge circuit panel was rounded out by U.S. District Judge Victoria Calvert, a Joe Biden appointee sitting in from the Northern District Court of Georgia, who disagreed with one aspect of the majority’s ruling.
In a dissenting opinion, Calvert said she would have reversed the men’s kidnapping convictions. She disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the pickup trucks used by Travis and Greg McMichael qualify as instrumentalities of interstate commerce for attempted kidnapping.
When a victim is not transported across state lines, evidence must show the offender either traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or used the mail or another instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce to commit or further the crime.
“Here, the evidence showed that the defendants used Travis’s truck to drive on the streets of a residential community to pursue Arbery and then parked Travis’s truck to block Arbery from fleeing,” Calvert wrote.
“There was no interstate travel, no use of the interstate highway system, no exchange of communications via phone or text message, and no use of the internet,” she added.
While the decision aligns with those of other circuit courts, Calvert said it raises constitutional concerns about the balance between state and federal prosecution.
Sad news. Judge Dube, who served our Court as a magistrate judge for seventeen years, has passed away. Judge Dube served from 1996 to 2013. He also served our country as a Marine before attending the University of Miami for both his undergraduate and legal education.
Below is David's 2013 post commemorating Judge Dube's retirement. Rest in peace, Judge Dube.
********
By John R Byrne
It's hard to find a bigger fan of the U than Judge Martinez. For a while, he even did the Spanish language broadcast for some of the sports teams. Recently, UM Law awarded him the Davison Award, an award given annually to a distinguished alumnus of the law school. Several of our judges came out to celebrate him (picture below)
And a Happy Veteran's today to all the blog readers who've served this country.
Everyone has been talking about the grand jury investigating Trump's "grand conspiracy" theory here in the Southern District of Florida. Bloomberg covered it last week (including two AUSAs being fired or having to resign --depending on who you ask -- for not participating) and the New York Times has the story this morning. From the Times:
Far-right influencers have been hinting in recent weeks that they have finally found a venue — Miami — and a federal prosecutor — Jason A. Reding Quiñones — to pursue long-promised charges of a “grand conspiracy” against President Trump’s adversaries.
Their theory of the case, still unsupported by the evidence: A cabal of Democrats and “deep-state” operatives, possibly led by former President Barack Obama, has worked to destroy Mr. Trump in a years long plot spanning the inquiry into his 2016 campaign to the charges he faced after leaving office.
But that narrative, which has been promoted in general terms by Mr. Trump and taken root online, has emerged in a nascent but widening federal investigation.
Last week, Mr. Reding Quiñones, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, issued more than two dozen subpoenas, including to officials who took part in the inquiry into ties between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
Among them, they said, were James R. Clapper Jr., the former director of national intelligence; Peter Strzok, a former F.B.I. counterintelligence agent who helped run the Russia investigation; and Lisa Page, a former lawyer at the bureau.
Bloomberg has more details about the politics inside the office:
Yesterday was the Red Mass of the Holy Spirit at Gesù Catholic Church. The Miami Catholic Lawyers Guild organizes the event every year. The Lex Christi, Lex Amoris Award was presented to Chief Judge Altonaga by Judge Ruiz. For those of you whose Latin is rusty, the award translates to Law of Christ, Law of Love. The mass was presided over by Archbishop Wenski, pictured below with the aforementioned judges.
We're moving into the '50s now with our SDFLA judges, featuring Judge Emett Clay Choate today. Judge Choate presided over some interesting cases in our district, including the case of a man (Richard Paul Pavlick) who tried to assassinate then President-elect John F. Kennedy. FBA write up below. Served in World War I and practiced in Oklahoma and New York before moving to Miami.
Judge Choate was nominated by President Eisenhower and served on the district court from 1954-1974. In Moorhead v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 152 F. Supp. 131 (S.D. Fla. 1957), aff’d, 248 F.2d 544 (5th Cir. 1957), Judge Choate ordered the Miami City Commission to end segregation on the municipal golf course.
By John R. Byrne
One of the best events our local chapter of the FBA puts on every year is the Supreme Court roundup with Amy Howe. The co-founder of SCOTUS blog, Amy's been covering the Supreme Court beat for years and has also argued before the Court. Always a great turnout from our bench at this lunch.
This year's event will be at Coral Reef Yacht Club in Coconut Grove on Tuesday, November 18. You can buy your tickets here.
There's whispers going around that this might happen because they haven't been paid in many months because of the shutdown. And could you blame them?
As the U.S. government shutdown disrupts paychecks for federal workers across the country, it is exacerbating the financial woes of lawyers who defend the poorest members of society when they are accused of federal crimes.
Some of the private attorneys who work as court-appointed lawyers for indigent federal criminal defendants have stopped taking new cases and have argued that their clients are being denied their right to effective counsel, according to court records and defense lawyers.
About 12,000 private lawyers across the U.S. serve on court-managed panels that provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford to hire an attorney. The program that compensates these lawyers under the Criminal Justice Act ran out of money in early July, and the shutdown - now in its 34th day - has resulted in Congress not authorizing any new funding.
Lawyers who serve on these panels represent about 40% of criminal cases against people who cannot afford attorneys, according to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The remaining 60% of indigent cases are handled by full-time federal public defenders who work for the court system. Since mid-October, they have been working without pay as well.
Federal judges generally fall into two camps. Ones who do most (if not all) public speaking from the bench and on case-related issues. And others who are more out there in the community and weigh in on issues beyond the cases and controversies before them. Judge Altman is, unabashedly so, in the latter camp. And for the past two years, his focus has been on the Israeli-Hamas conflict, where he has staunchly defended Israel’s actions in the region.
Yesterday, Fox News wrote a story about an upcoming panel at the Federalist Society convention in D.C. that he’s moderating. When asked about why he should be speaking on these issues, he said:
"Those claims, is Israel violating the laws of war? Is it an apartheid state? Does it occupy land that doesn't belong to it?" Altman said. "Those are just legal questions with legal answers, and I thought, who better than federal judges to understand what the applicable legal rule is, to adduce and find out what the relevant facts are, and then to apply the facts to the law and issue a judgment, than a federal judge."
You can read the full story here.
If you've spent any time in the Wilkie D. Ferguson building, you likely have had occasion to stare up at the various portraits of judges that hang on the walls of the lobby area outside the courtrooms. And maybe, like me, you've thought: "Who the heck is that?"
With permission from the Court, the South Florida Chapter of the Federal Bar Association took high resolution photographs of the portraits and are featuring the portraits and short bios of the judges in weekly posts on social media. I'm planning to share that same content here. I hope you enjoy learning a bit about our district's rich history.
Hon. John W. Holland. Judge Holland was nominated by President Roosevelt and served on the district court from 1936-1969. He served as a “one-man court” in our district from 1936 to 1950 and, in 1949, was solely responsible for the 1,711 cases pending in the district. Despite the backbreaking case load that often led to him working seven-day weeks, Judge Holland was said to have had a “disposition as bright as the Florida sunshine on a cloudless day.”
Heat guard Terry Rozier didn't play in the Heat's opening loss to the Magic on Wednesday night. It was a coach's decision. Playing time is now the least of his worries. On Thursday morning, Rozier along with several others were arrested by the FBI on illegal gambling charges. Chauncey Billups--the NBA hall of famer who's currently coaching the Trailblazers--was also arrested, though for a slightly different alleged gambling scheme.
The gist of the charges against Rozier involve prop "under" bets placed on his statistical performance in games, bets that paid off when Rozier left a game early. The separate indictment against Billups alleges that he was involved in rigged poker games that involved various methods of high-tech cheating that seem right out of a movie (including special contact lenses and glasses that could read marked cards).
Oh, and the mafia (Las Cosa Nostra, specifically) is also involved. Wild, wild, stuff. ESPN article here, if you want to read more.
GUEST POST BY LAUREN KRASNOFF
Yesterday was a big day on the 11th floor of the Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse, where the words NOT GUILTY were ringing loudly enough to hear in the attorney lounge (what, you forgot there was an attorney lounge?). The Office of the Federal Defender heard not one, but TWO federal juries find their clients NOT GUILTY.
In Judge Ruiz’s courtroom, AFPDs Ashley Kay and MaeAnn Dunker’s client, Ricardo Dos Anjos Gomes, was found not guilty of two counts of assault on a federal officer. Mr. Gomes was accused of biting two officers at the Crome Detention Center, where he was being held by ICE. The officers alleged that Mr. Gomes, upset about the conditions of confinement, bit the officers, causing them to “redirect” him to the ground (where they continued to “redirect” him, with nine other officers piling on). It turns out the jury agreed with Ashley and MaeAnn – that even those detained by ICE have a right to defend themselves from officers using excessive force.
In Judge Williams’s courtroom, AFPDs Victor Van Dyke and Ian McDonald’s client, Angelina Miguelina Hollis, was found not guilty of conspiracy to export a controlled substance and attempted exportation of a controlled substance. (Note: The controlled substance was marijuana, and yes, the dwindling USAO still has time to prosecute people for marijuana). Ms. Hollis’s alleged co-conspirator testified against her, but Victor and Ian were able to show not only that the cooperator perjured herself and lied during her debriefs, but also that Ms. Hollis was lied to, manipulated, and set up – and never had any intent to join the conspiracy.
I’m always proud to be a defender – but getting word of two not guilty verdicts in one day (from one office full of lawyers who aren’t being paid right now) is a great reminder about why we continue to do the work. I’m a strong believer that exercising the right to trial is the best leverage we have against the power of the United States government. In both of these cases, the government had it wrong. Ashley, MaeAnn, Victor, and Ian stood between their clients and the government – and told the government that if you want to take away our client’s liberty, you’ll have to get through us first.
What a great day for the Federal Defender’s Office. What a great day for justice. And what a great reminder to keep saying, “Ready for trial.”
#PDPride
Judge Dimitrouleas is a great trial judge. A story from a trial he is currently presiding over:
An in-custody witness comes into court one morning complaining that the jail didn’t allow him to wear his yarmulke to court. Judge D says hold on, I have one in my car you can have. He calls a 5 minute recess, goes down to his car and returns with yarmulke in hand. He passes it to the witness and calls in the jury.
He later explains that it was from Bob Josefsberg’s funeral.
1. The DOJ is looking to hire a bunch of new lawyers. Business Insider covers it here, noting that this includes the Miami office which is looking for criminal, civil, and appellate attorneys.
3. Non-football related, some of us need more religion in our lives given the state of our football teams. Canes blew a prime time game Friday night, FSU has somehow lost nine straight ACC games, and Florida just fired their coach. Oh, and the Dolphins were bludgeoned to death 31-6 by the 1-5 Cleveland Browns. Think this is officially rock bottom, folks.
His memoir, Life, Law, & Liberty, is coming out. So he is speaking... and saying some interesting things. From the NY Times:
As a justice, he leaned mostly right, siding with the court’s conservatives to strike down campaign finance laws, to gut the Voting Rights Act and to expand the scope of the Second Amendment. But he joined the court’s liberals in cases on abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty.
Justice Kennedy also turned out to be the greatest judicial champion of gay rights in the nation’s history, the author of the majority opinions in four of the court’s landmark gay rights rulings, culminating in the 2015 decision establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The rulings were met by cutting dissents from Justice Scalia, who wrote, for instance, that he would “hide my head in a bag” if he ever joined an opinion that began, as the 2015 one did, with this sentence: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”
But the blow that really stung, Justice Kennedy wrote, was his colleague’s statement in 2015 that there were no genuine Westerners on the court because “California does not count.”
That comment, he said last week, was “way out of line,” as “my upbringing was very much in the West.”
It led to a rift, one that did not start to heal until the next February, when Justice Scalia came to visit. “We had the conversation right here,” Justice Kennedy recalled, “and he was really concerned that he’d gone too hard. He was in earnest, and he was being honest about the fact that he changed his mind and that he was intemperate.”
Justice Scalia, an enthusiastic traveler, was setting off on a hunting trip in Texas, during which he would die in his sleep. “And the last thing he said was, ‘Tony, this is my last long trip,’” Justice Kennedy said. “Which turned out to have multiple meanings.”
Yesterday, a group of lawyers and Chief Judge Altonaga toured the soon-to-be re-opened Freedom Tower. The museum there is incredible and a must visit if you work downtown (and worth the trip if you don't). The tower was built in 1925 as a home for the The Miami Daily News and Metropolis (later shortened to just The Miami News). But from 1962 to 1974, it served as the Cuban Refugee Center, a help center for Cuban refugees fleeing the Castro regime. The recently updated museum has several very cool, interactive exhibits that memorialize the refugee center.
Picture of the touring group below. Thank you to Boies Schiller partner Laselve Harrison for organizing the tour on behalf of the Federal Bar Association and to former US Attorney and current Colson Hicks partner Bob Martinez for sharing this 1962 article about the Cuban Refugee Program.
He’s represented by Patrick Fitzgerald, the former U.S. Attorney in Chicago. I am not sure if he’s ever represented a criminal defendant who went to trial. At the arraignment, he said it was the honor of a lifetime to be representing Comey.
If you were representing Comey, what would your strategy be?
Speedy demand?
Vindictive prosecution motion? (If so, speedy trial is tolled).
Talk to the media? (Comey has already given a video statement).
What would you do?
By John R. Byrne
On Tuesday, September 30th, the Federal Bar Association – Broward Chapter held its Annual Installation Luncheon at the Tower Club in Fort Lauderdale. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom swore in this year’s Board and President Jonathan K. Osborne. Judge Bloom also served as the event’s featured speaker and shared remarks on the critical importance of safeguarding judicial independence. The Broward Chapter honored outgoing President, Darren Spielman, as well as Latoya C. Brown, and Dora F. Kaufman for their outstanding service to the Broward County federal bench and bar.
Pictures below!
The SDFLA is headed to the Supreme Court. Well, at least a case from the SDFLA. It's the Havana Docks case that we've blogged on several times.
Brief recap for those who have moved the case off your brain docket.
(1) A corporation, Havana Docks, sued cruise lines for violating the Helms Burton Act ("trafficking" in the docks and piers that had been stolen from the corporation by the Cuban government).
(2) Havana Docks wins a $400M judgment at the trial level (good for Havana Docks)
(3) Eleventh Circuit overturns the judgment, saying that the corporation's concession to operate the docks expired before the trafficking occurred (bad for Havana Docks)
(4) The Supreme Court grants Havana Docks's cert petition (Havana Docks feeling good again!)
Very exciting stuff. Congrats to Stephanie Casey, Thomas Kroeger, Zach Lipshultz, and Bob Martinez of Colson Hicks.
Cert order below. Glad to see that the Supremes are still knocking out these orders on typewriters. Somebody's got to keep that industry in business.
Congratulations to Judge Scola, who retired from the federal bench after fourteen years of service. Before that, he was a long-time state court judge. I, like many others in our district, had the pleasure of appearing before Judge Scola. Before I tried a case in front of him, a seasoned trial lawyer told me, "He'll give you a great trial." What he meant by that was that Judge Scola would be engaged, informed, and would rule with fairness and a heavy dose of common sense. Exactly what you'd expect from a judge who was once a highly skilled trial lawyer himself. Plus, the man sounds like Tom Brokaw when he speaks, which adds to the aura.
We wish him well in his retirement, which I'm sure will involve long days on the golf course and tennis court.
His law clerks threw a retirement bash this past Saturday at the Salt Waterfront Restaurant (first picture below).
