Did you know that the Sears Tower is now called the Willis Tower?

I sure didn't.

Anyway, the leader from the Liberty City group -- Narseal Batiste -- who was convicted of attempting to blow up that building was sentenced to 13 1/2 years by Judge Lenard. She sentenced brothers Burson Ausgustin, 24, and Rotschild Augustin, 26, to six and seven years in prison. Patrick Abraham, 30, received more than nine years and 34-year-old Stanley Phanor, eight years. Prosecutors had asked for 70 years for Batiste and 30 years for the others. I was happy to see that Judge Lenard rejected those requests. From the BBC:

Sentencing Batiste, US District Judge Joan Lenard said: "You've done great harm to yourself, your family, the young men who were your followers, and you've violated the trust of your country."
Batiste apologised for the plot in court, saying he had "wanted respect".
"I wanted to be this person that I really wasn't. I've never been a violent person," the Associated Press news agency quoted him as saying.

Anyway, hope you have a nice Thanksgiving week... I'm trying to figure out my new iPhone. I think I miss my BlackBerry....

"Liberty City terror suspect gets 6 years in prison"

The first of the Liberty City defendants -- 24-year-old Burson Augustin -- was sentenced today. The government sought the maximum -- 30 years. But Judge Lenard did the right thing and sentenced Augustin to 6 years. From the AP:

A judge on Wednesday handed a six-year jail sentence to one of five men convicted of plotting to blow up the tallest building in the United States, Sears Tower, and swearing allegiance to Al-Qaeda.
US District Judge Joan Lenard found that Burson Augustin, 23, played a minor role in the conspiracy and gave him a far lighter sentence than the 30 years that prosecutors had been seeking.
In handing down the sentence, Lenard said: "Islamic terrorism is one of the most tremendous problems that this country now confronts... this defendant took an oath to Al-Qaeda."
But she added that Augustin's actions might have been affected by other factors. "This was a young man who for whatever reason, perhaps lack of education or lack of direction, came under the influence of Narseal Batiste."
Augustin's attorney Louis Casuso, had asked for leniency, telling the court that "when you are young, you say a lot of stupid things and you go through a lot of stupid things."

Jay Weaver covers Liberty City verdict

Check out the interesting piece in the Herald today.

Here's the intro:

Did booting a holdout juror off the panel seal the fate of the Liberty City Six?

That is a central issue in the courtroom documents released last week after the five guilty verdicts that attracted national attention.

Known only as Juror No. 4, the woman was accused by 11 fellow jurors, prosecutors and the judge of refusing to deliberate in the federal terrorism-conspiracy case. However, in jury notes the woman said she wanted to ''see this trial to the end'' but could not withstand the pressure she was facing to change her stance -- presumably ``not guilty.''
Had she held out, prompting a third mistrial in the controversial case, the five men now facing lengthy prison sentences could have walked out of the courtroom free, because the U.S. attorney's office in Miami had already said it wouldn't try them a fourth time.

U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard's removal of the juror will be the centerpiece of defense appeals, based on claims that their clients didn't receive a fair trial. After Juror No. 4, a black woman, was replaced by a black male alternate, the 12-member panel convicted five of the six defendants Tuesday on charges of conspiring with the notorious global terrorist organization al Qaeda.

''Her note clearly shows that the other jurors tried to convince her to change her beliefs about the case,'' said attorney Richard Houlihan, who represented the sole acquitted defendant, Naudimar Herrera.

''They didn't agree with her, but that doesn't mean she wasn't deliberating with them,'' Houlihan said. 'Her factual beliefs were at odds with the other jurors'. Absolutely it was going to be a hung jury if she had been allowed to stay on.

The article even has a Moran/Abbell reference, citing back to when Judge Hoeveler dismissed a juror:

To follow up, Judge Lenard reviewed a precedent-setting appeals court decision from a 1998 trial in which a Miami juror was removed from a 12-member panel because she refused to deliberate. U.S. District Judge William Hoeveler removed the woman because she spent the time working on her nails.

Lenard heeded Hoeveler's example, first by questioning the 11 other panelists about Juror No. 4. They all said she was turning her back on them when they sought her opinion, and most quoted her as saying that she doesn't believe in or trust the law.

Appellate lawyer extraordinaire Richard Klugh got all Survivor on us and had this to say about the law:

An appeals expert in South Florida said the ultimate question is whether a juror is doing his or her job.

''It seems that the jurors in this case tried to make that decision themselves, as they appeared deadlocked,'' said attorney Richard C. Klugh Jr., who reviewed the notes. ``What you don't want is a situation like [the TV show] Survivor, where the majority of the jurors vote to kick a juror off the island just because of preference.''

Klugh said the removal of the juror will be a ''substantial issue'' in the defense team's motion for a new trial and eventual appeals.

Five of six convicted in Liberty City 6 case

Naudimar Herrera was acquitted (represented by Richard Houlihan). The rest, including lead defendant Narseal Batiste, were convicted. Initial Herald article here.

UPDATE (4:24pm): South Florida Lawyers has a funny post on the verdict. The Sun-Sentinel covers the case here. And the AP is also covering the case. Sentencing for the 5 convicted is set for July 26.

What an unbelievable case. Press releases by the Attorney General. Three really long trials. Two hung juries. Tens of millions of dollars spent. Two acquittals. An acquitted defendant being deported. Five convictions. Sick jurors. Replaced jurors. And now the appeals...

Should prosecutors hire jury consultants?

Michael Froomkin, blogging at Discourse, raises the very interesting question here. From his post:

If the US Attorney’s office uses jury consultants to tell them how to select a prosecution-friendly jury, that would seem to me to be not just unsavory, but to raise some due process and right to jury trial issues.

But, I have to say that based on a cursory survey of the literature, it seems my instincts here may be misplaced: I’ve found half a dozen academic articles that just report on this phenomenon as if there is nothing odd or unsavory about it; if anything the drift is that the poor under-resourced prosecutors (the ones who just spent $5-10 million on the Liberty Six trials) need consultants to level the playing field.

I suppose if all the consultants are doing is helping the prosecution spin better then that doesn’t raise a constitutional question, although I still think that it is not a good use of public money. But if they are helping prosecutors identify pro-prosecution jurors, even by attitudinal rather then demographic factors, that seems to to me to take us yet another step away from the jury system we would wish for.

Some surely would say that the government is only responding to an arms race started by wealthy criminal defendants and, who knows, there may be something to that in some cases. But in this case the defendants are not wealthy. Has the public defender’s office got jury consultants too? If they do, couldn’t they make a non-aggression pact on the jury consultants and save us all some money?

Prosecutors use jury consultants in high-profile cases all of the time. Other than the cost, I had never thought that it was an issue, but Froomkin raises some interesting points. Thoughts?

Back from the West Coast

It was a fun week in San Francisco (I can't believe I missed the Father Cutié drama)...

I see the blog was in good hands while I was away. Rick was great and we hope to have him back on a regular basis.

Just a couple of quick hits before we get going for the week:

-- The Liberty City 6 jury (the latest version of it) will continue deliberating this week. That case is truly jinxed... (In his post on last week's LC6 happenings, Rick missed Mike Tein -- who, of course, is the most quotable lawyer in the District -- from the Blum article: "What a shameful waste of our taxes at the worst possible time. Just think what $10 million could have done for our schoolchildren in Liberty City.")

-- The District now has a Wiki page. It's interesting to look at the historical makeup of the Court. (Some trivia pointed out on the page: "This federal district has the dubious distinction of having had more judges removed through impeachment than any other district, with a total of two, one-third of all federal district judges so removed.")

-- Justice O'Connor had this to say about judicial elections: "They're awful. I hate them." More here.

-- Rick posted on the FIU faculty vote for Dean, and FIU law professor Howard Wasserman has a lot to say about the vote and the coverage here. Howard criticizes the open proceedings and compares it to watching sausages being made. Gotta disagree with Howard here -- we wanna know how sausages are made. Open proceedings are a good thing. Better to have the press in there and reporting (even if the coverage in this case wasn't complete) than the alternative of having the doors closed.

-- Rumpole demonstrates why the Ben Kuehne case needs to be dismissed.

The "maybe-nots" have it (updated)

Have a rough day at the office ahead of you today? I bet Judge Lenard can sympathize. Apparently, "sternly order[ing]" the jurors in the Liberty City 6 trial "to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate" (as Curt Anderson put it for AP) did not do the trick. But she is not giving up on them yet. Motion for mistrial denied.

UPDATE: Deliberations are starting again with a new alternate subbing-in for the person now known as "the recalcitrant juror".

"Please help us, judge."

It didn't take. The mind-wipe, I mean. It didn't work.

Friday afternoon, deliberations over the fate of the Liberty City Six hit a new snag, according to reports by the Associated Press and the Miami Herald. Here's the abridged version of the AP report:

A few hours after an ill juror was replaced, a note signed by the jury foreman in the "Liberty City Six" case said a female juror "refuses to engage in discussions based on the evidence or the law" and that this could be "unfair to the defendants," according to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard. The note said the juror was disruptive and had made comments offensive to others.

"Please help us, judge," the note said, adding the juror "feels deliberating is a waste of time."

In court Friday, the juror accused of not wanting to deliberate also sent her own note, complaining that she feels under "attack" from the others and hinted she may have made comments about the law that were "misinterpreted."

After summarizing the notes in court, Lenard summoned the jurors back into court and sternly ordered them to follow the law and obey her instructions regarding their duty to deliberate. Lenard told the panel to return Monday.

"This may clear up the problem," Lenard said outside the jury's presence. "Maybe not."

"I direct you to wipe your minds clean."

That was Judge Lenard instructing the Liberty City jury to start over with its deliberations, after replacing a sick juror with an alternate. Here is Jay Weaver's article.

Another mistrial?

The Liberty City 6 case looks like it's on the way to another mistrial...

UPDATE -- 4PM -- Judge Lenard dismissed the sick juror. She is hearing arguments about replacing that juror with an alternate. Here's the Herald article.

Original post from this morning addressing the problem:

Here's the Herald article:

Jury deliberations in the third terrorism trial of a group of inner-city Miami men accused of collaborating with al Qaeda were delayed Thursday because a juror has fallen ill and cannot return until next week.
Prosecutors argued that the remaining 11 members of the jury should continue to deliberate without the 12th juror, but defense lawyers opposed that recommendation. Instead, they argued that the judge replace the 12th member with an alternate juror, stressing that the panel had only started its deliberations on Monday.

Why would the government want to proceed with 11? Read on...

Defense lawyers seemed especially concerned about the potential loss of the one juror because he is a black man who they believe might be sympathetic to the six defendants, who are also mostly black. They even asked the judge to suspend the deliberations until the 12th juror, whose illness was not disclosed, could return next Wednesday, as recommended by his doctor. ''He's a black juror,'' defense attorney Louis Casuso said. ``He's one of the very few that has no problems.''
U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard rejected suspending deliberations, saying they must continue because of the length of the trial. ''It's really not an issue of race; it's an issue of illness,'' she told the defense team.

What about adding the alternate:

Lenard told both sides to return later Thursday to argue further over adding an alternate as the 12th juror for deliberations, instead of going forward with the 11 existing members. If the judge decides to add an alternate juror, it would be an Hispanic woman.
The judge would then tell the jury to begin its deliberations anew.
The racially mixed, 12-member jury started deliberations on Monday after a two-month trial, but the one juror fell ill early on Wednesday.
They are deciding whether the defendants, dubbed the Liberty City 6, are guilty of conspiring with the global terrorist group, al Qaeda, to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago along with major federal buildings in Miami and other cities.
The first two trials ended with hung juries and the acquittal of one defendant, a lawful U.S. resident named Lyglenson Lemorin who is facing deportation to his native Haiti.
Prosecutors tried to portray the group's ringleader, Narseal Batiste, as a militant figure who used his Moorish religious organization to recruit followers to destroy the United States. They accused Batiste and his followers of taking an oath to al Qaeda and shooting photographs of target sites in Miami to prepare for their destructive mission.
Defense attorneys attacked the prosecution's case as a setup led by an FBI informant who posed as an al Qaeda representative to lure the men into a fictitious terrorism conspiracy. They said that the men were struggling construction workers trying to help their poor community by establishing the religious group in a Liberty City warehouse.
Awaiting verdicts again on four terror-related conspiracy counts are: Batiste, 35; Patrick Abraham, 29; Stanley Grant Phanor, 33; Rotschild Augustine, 25; Burson Augustin, 24; and Naudimar Herrera, 25. The first two defendants are being held at the Federal Detention Center. The latter four were released on bond after the second mistrial last year.
If convicted on all four charges, including conspiring to provide material support for al Qaeda, each defendant could face up to 70 years in prison.

Back from Spring Break

Well, spring break is over, and you can feel it -- it already feels like summer outside. I'm already missing the blast of cool air from last week.

This week, we'll be sure to hear the Castroneves verdict.

Last week, I missed the 11th Circuit's opinion in Gen. Noriega's case. Looks like he is headed to France (!!). The Federal Criminal Defense Blog -- run by friend of blog Tom Withers -- has all the details.

Liberty City is still moving along. They've had 36 trial days -- Defendant Batiste is on the stand now...

Vanessa Blum covered the Riolo Ponzi scheme here. She raises the interesting question of whether trustees and receivers do more harm than good for investors. South Florida Lawyers covers a similar question here. Friend of blog David Rothstein in the Blum article:

As attorney David Rothstein of Miami put it: "People who perpetrate Ponzi schemes typically don't keep very clean records."Rothstein represents victims of another alleged Ponzi scheme under investigation in South Florida. In that case, federal regulators say George Theodule of Lake Worth raised more than $40 million, using fresh funds to repay earlier investors.

Theodule misappropriated at least $3.8 million to purchase expensive luggage, electronics, artwork and jewelry, according to a civil lawsuit filed in December by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.Theodule's attorney, Russell Weigel of Miami, said his client disputes the allegations.To the frustration of his investors, Theodule has not been charged with any criminal activity. And according to Rothstein, it's unknown how much of the money entrusted to Theodule is left."Typically, when people live large, the money evaporates," Rothstein said.

Finally, you'll notice a new comment policy on the blog. You gotta sign in first. You can still post under an alias, but I think this will add a bit more accountability. We'll see how it works.

Is It Friday Already?

By SFL

Boy the federal court beat is...a little beat today.

Does it count as SD FL news that I saw Judge Moreno having a nice lunch at La Loggia yesterday?

No, guess not -- darn, where's Julie Kay when you need her?

Anyways, the always-in-trial big man already updated us on Joe Cool. Judge Huck set sentencing for May 6.

Third time's the charm in the Liberty 6 retrial, which is starting to feel like Jarndyce and Jarndyce -- only longer.

What do you all think of this line from the defense opening:

“This case is a 100 percent setup; this is a manufactured crime,” the lawyer, Ana M. Jhones, said in her opening argument, which drew several objections from the prosecution, most notably when she remarked that “taking an oath to Al Qaeda is not a crime.”

True, but do must jurors think it should be?

And finally, more details on the IRS v. UBS showdown unfolding right here in sunny South Florida:

With today’s lawsuit, the U.S. asked a federal judge to enforce its so-called John Doe summonses. On July 1, a federal judge in Miami approved an IRS summons seeking information on thousands of UBS accounts owned or controlled by U.S. citizens. Negotiations between the U.S., Switzerland and UBS have been at a standstill since then, according to a Justice Department filing.

UBS said in a statement that it expected today’s filing.

“UBS believes it has substantial defenses” to the U.S. attempt to enforce the summonses and will “vigorously contest” the case, the bank said in the statement. The bank’s objections are based on U.S. laws, Swiss financial privacy laws, and a 2001 agreement between UBS and the IRS, according to the statement.

Anyone know who has been retained to represent UBS on this? I know a certain humble blogger who's available.

Have a great weekend all!