Showing posts with label American Idol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Idol. Show all posts

Monday, March 01, 2010

THIS is American Idol!

Or, rather, Inmate Idol...

On a faded green basketball court surrounded by a tall fence topped with barbed wire, a small platform stood elevated just inches from the ground.
Frederick Davis walked to it, took the mike and grabbed at his orange baggy pants. ``Before what you see on my pants -- INMATE DCJ -- I'm a man,'' he said.
Davis, 21, then launched into a rap in front of the 14 other inmates sitting in rows of plastic chairs. He was taking part in the second annual Corrections Idol contest -- a singing, rapping and poetry competition meant to showcase Miami-Dade Corrections inmates' talents while building their self-image.
``When they come here, they feel like they belong,'' said Chief of Operations Manny Fernandez. ``They're part of the solution, not the problem.''
Sunday's competition at the Metro West Detention Center west of Doral is an annual event planned by the Inmate Special Events Committee. Created three years ago by Fernandez, the committee includes recreation officers from all of the Miami-Dade County Corrections facilities, who also organize basketball, volleyball and Ping-Pong tournaments.


Other quick hits this morning:

1. South Florida Lawyers is hosting the Blawg Review this week.

2. John Pacenti covers the FCPA. Paul Calli is fired up:

But it was the Las Vegas roundup that received all the attention. Some defense attorneys for those arrested are accusing the government of entrapment. They point to an informant as the real culprit. Richard T. Bistrong is a former vice president for military equipment manufacturer Armor Holdings in Jacksonville. He has been charged in Washington with FCPA violations for trying to bribe officials in Nigeria and the Netherlands. He also introduced the indicted executives to the undercover FBI agents. “Mr. Bistrong’s venality, greed and deception, I think, will be an important part of this trial,” said Paul Calli, an attorney for Stephen Giordanella, the only defendant captured in the sting who wasn’t at the Las Vegas trade show.

The DBR is still trying its hand at video. Enjoy.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Supreme Court addresses case of the chocolate penis

This is not a joke -- check out Wellons v. Hall, a case that comes out of the 11th Circuit. Here's the AP and the ABA:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered a federal appeals court to reconsider the claims of a Georgia death row inmate who is challenging his rape and murder conviction based on some unusual chocolate gifts given to the trial judge and bailiff.
Some jurors hearing the case against defendant Marcus Wellons gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts.
In a 5-4
ruling (PDF), the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion ordered the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider whether Wellons is entitled to discovery and a hearing in light of a high court ruling last year on behalf of an inmate who contended prosecutors withheld evidence of his drug addiction.
“Neither Wellons nor any court has ascertained exactly what went on at this capital trial or what prompted such ‘gifts,’ ” the Supreme Court wrote in the per curiam opinion. “Wellons has repeatedly tried, in both state and federal court, to find out what occurred, but he has found himself caught in a procedural morass.”
The court said that defense counsel did not learn until after the trial about unreported ex parte contacts between jurors and the judge, that jurors and a bailiff planned a reunion, and that jurors gave the chocolate gifts to the judge and bailiff either during or immediately after the penalty phase of the trial.
“From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the Supreme Court said in the per curiam opinion. “The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner’s constitutional claims.”

Ah, that's just too good. In other news: Judge Jordan sentences the Crime Stoppers cop to two months.

And American Idol is back:

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

D. Kyle Sampson

Although some of you thought that the trivia question below about D. Kyle Sampson was another April Fool's post, it was not. He actually tried a felon in possession case -- United States v. Heron Stepherson -- in the Southern District of Florida in March 2004. Judge Hurley presided and the local AUSA was Lothrop Morristhe. AFPD was Bob Adler.

Thanks to one of my favorite readers for the answer to the trivia question!

As for felon in possession cases, check out Rumpole's riff here regarding gun prosecutions in both state and federal court. He raises an issue that the Federal PDs have been complaining about for a long time. The problem is that the cases which permitted dual prosecutions were decided when the feds did not really pursue the run of the mill state gun or drug case. Now that it's common practice, those cases really should be reconsidered. Or better yet, the Justice Department should follow its "petite policy."

As for American Idol tonight, Sanjaya Malakar won't be voted off. My bet is on Phil Stacey or Haley Scarnato to go.

UPDATE -- here are portions of the "petite policy":

"The purpose of this policy is to vindicate substantial federal interests through appropriate federal prosecutions, to protect persons charged with criminal conduct from the burdens associated with multiple prosecutions and punishments for substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s), to promote efficient utilization of Department resources, and to promote coordination and cooperation between federal and state prosecutors.

"This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General. ...

"The first substantive prerequisite is that the matter must involve a substantial federal interest. This determination will be made on a case-by-case basis, applying the considerations applicable to all federal prosecutions. See Principles of Federal Prosecution, USAM 9-27.230. Matters that come within the national investigative or prosecutorial priorities established by the Department are more likely than others to satisfy this requirement.

"The second substantive prerequisite is that the prior prosecution must have left that substantial federal interest demonstrably unvindicated. In general, the Department will presume that a prior prosecution, regardless of result, has vindicated the relevant federal interest. That presumption, however, may be overcome when there are factors suggesting an unvindicated federal interest."

United States Attorneys' Manual 9-2.031