Justices Better at Precedent Than Prescience

That's the title to this interesting Adam Liptak NYTimes article. Liptak argues that the Supreme Court Justices aren't too good about making predictions. I particularly like the discussion of broadcasting federal court hearings. I think it's absurd that we don't allow cameras in the courtroom. From the article:

The Supreme Court’s main strength lies in adjudicating disputes based on things that have already happened. It is less good at predicting the future.
On Wednesday, for instance, it shut down plans to broadcast the same-sex marriage trial in San Francisco partly for fear that witnesses in the case would be harassed if their public testimony were made more public. That conclusion is known in the trade as speculation.
Consider first of all that we are talking about a trial held in open court and subject to intense press coverage. The witnesses are mostly paid experts whose views on the subject are already well known. “They’re not, after all, in the witness protection program testifying against Mafia bosses,” Eva Rodriguez wrote in The Washington Post.
Then add to the analysis that the additional coverage the court forbade was only closed-circuit transmissions to a few other federal courthouses around the country. (There had been talk of posting video on YouTube, but the idea was never approved and so was not before the Supreme Court.)
The people viewing the transmissions in the remote courthouses would have been barred from making recordings of the proceedings. Allowing the transmissions, Eugene Volokh wrote on The Volokh Conspiracy legal blog, was equivalent to “holding the trial in an extra large courtroom.”
“And most of the extra audience would be far from California,” Mr. Volokh added, “and therefore not especially likely to be able to effectively harass the witnesses in ways that turn on seeing the witness’s testimony.”
There were other grounds for the court’s 5-to-4 decision, including the majority’s sense that lower-court judges in California have twisted the procedural rules to allow video coverage, a point that resonated with Ms. Rodriguez and other commentators. But the court also grounded its ruling on a finding that opponents of same-sex marriage “have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result” from the transmissions.

"He's just a natural leader -- it's innate, yet he's so modest."

That's Willy Ferrer's former boss Murray Greenberg in the nice Herald article about Ferrer becoming U.S. Attorney. Here's the intro:

When Barack Obama was elected president, Miami's Democratic machine revved up to raise the profile of Wifredo Ferrer -- now the likely nominee for U.S. attorney in Miami.
His résumé was an easy sell: former deputy chief of staff to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, a one-time federal prosecutor in Miami and chief of Miami-Dade County's federal litigation section.
The son of Cuban immigrants also was valedictorian at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High, first in his class at the University of Miami, and president of his class at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.
``When the president was elected and it was clear a Democrat was in the White House, the stars aligned,'' said Obama fundraiser J. Ricky Arriola, who met Ferrer, also an Obama backer, when they were both associates 18 years ago at Steel Hector & Davis in Miami.
``But he stands on his own -- no amount of political spinning would have gotten him this position,'' said Arriola, who was appointed by Obama to the president's Committee on the Arts and Humanities. ``Willy worked very hard to get it.''
Attorney General Eric Holder, former deputy to Reno during her tenure in that post, is overseeing a final FBI review of Ferrer this month before the president is expected to nominate him as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Ferrer, 43, married with two sons, would be the fourth lawyer of Cuban descent to fill the prominent job -- but the first appointed by a Democratic president.

The article concludes with more from Murray:

"He hasn't forgotten his background. He is Hialeah. He's very much at home in the Cuban culture, but he's also very much at home anywhere in Miami, and anywhere in the country.''

Our prior coverage of Willy is here .

Slow blogging

Sorry for the slow blogging. We will be back Monday. In the meantime, check out Rick Bascuas' blog -- he's not happy with the Court. South Florida Lawyers and Rumpole also have good posts. Enjoy the warmer weather...

"We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

That was Chief Assistant Federal Defender Michael Caruso (who should be the next PD after Kathy Williams becomes a judge) at the Jose Padilla oral argument in Atlanta discussing the treatment of his client at the Navy brig:

Convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla's attorneys asked an appeals court on Tuesday to throw out his conviction, arguing that he was the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct."

Padilla gained notoriety when he was accused in 2002 of plotting to blow up a radioactive "dirty bomb," though those claims were eventually dropped. He was later convicted along with two others in an unrelated terrorism plot.

Padilla's lawyer told the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that his client should have been granted an evidentiary hearing before the 2007 trial that would have proved he was being mistreated by the government.

***
In court filings and during arguments Tuesday, Padilla's attorney Michael Caruso contended there should have been an evidentiary hearing before the trial that would have proven he is the victim of "outrageous governmental conduct." He said his client was mistreated and tortured on a Navy brig, charges that federal officials have repeatedly denied.

"There can be no dispute that we have that here - extremely prolonged isolation, psychological and physical abuse, prolonged interrogation," said Caruso. "We have conduct that shocks the conscience."

It will be interesting to see what the Court does on this very sensitive case...

In other news:

SFLawyer covers the Federal Bar lunch here.

The Florida Bar is investigating a number of RRA lawyers (via Miami Herald).

And Scott Rothstein was before Judge Cohn today explaining that because he has known his lawyer Marc Nurik for 30 years (Nurik later said this was an exaggeration), he didn't think there could be a conflict:

Also, prosecutors said that Nurik could have exculpatory information since he worked with Rothstein.

But Rothstein told Cohn that he has no reservations about keeping Nurik as his attorney.

``I believe in his loyalty,'' Rothstein said.

When Cohn asked Rothstein if Nurik may attempt to protect other employees at the firm who prosecutors said may have criminal culpability, Rothstein said:

``I've known Mr. Nurik for 30 years, Judge. I don't believe that is a possibility for him.''

After the hearing, Nurik said that 30 years was an exaggeration -- he said he met Rothstein when he was a student in his trial advocacy class at Nova Southeastern University law school.

Rothstein racked up 20 Million AMEX points

Damn....

In other news, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts -- the confrontation case from last term that said lab reports were subject to Crawford and the Confrontation Clause -- may be on the chopping block. From Tony Mauro at Law.com:

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was not on the Court for the Melendez-Diaz case, sent out mixed signals on whether she would provide the vote needed for reversal. (Her predecessor David Souter was in the majority.) As has become her custom, Sotomayor actively questioned both sides during Monday's argument in Briscoe v. Virginia.
Meanwhile Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored last year's ruling, fought vociferously to save it during the hourlong hearing, and he strongly implied that the four dissenters in Melendez-Diaz had voted to review Briscoe just to overturn the precedent. "Why is this case here except as an opportunity to upset Melendez-Diaz?" Scalia asked, later adding, "I'm criticizing us for taking the case."
In the case before the Court, Mark Briscoe and Sheldon Cypress were prosecuted in Virginia courts on drug charges based in part on "certificates of analysis" from the state laboratory attesting to the amount and type of drugs found during their arrests. They both invoked the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which gives defendants the right to be confronted with the witnesses against them. They argued that the drug evidence needed to be presented in person so it could be subjected to cross-examination. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld use of the written certificates because state law allows defendants to call the forensic analysts as witnesses, and Briscoe and Cypress had not done so.
The Court in Melendez-Diaz indicated that an approach like Virginia's, shifting the burden of calling the witness to the defendant, would not satisfy the Sixth Amendment.
Upholding the Virginia approach, said the defendants' lawyer Richard Friedman, would "severely impair the confrontation right and threaten a fundamental transformation in the way Anglo-American trials have been conducted for hundreds of years."
But a brief (pdf) filed by state attorneys general asking that Melendez-Diaz be overturned was on the mind of several justices. The brief said the decision has already had an "overwhelming negative impact" on drug prosecutions by requiring short-staffed and underfunded state labs to spend too much time in courtrooms.
When Friedman said that, in fact, "the expense is not inordinate," Justice Samuel Alito Jr. snapped, "How can you say that? We have an amicus brief from 26 states and the District of Columbia arguing exactly the contrary."
Virginia Solicitor General Stephen McCullough, joined by Leondra Kruger, an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, argued that a system in which the defendant has the burden of calling the forensic witness satisfies the Constitution.
McCullough said that, since the Melendez-Diaz ruling was handed down, Virginia has seen "extensive gamesmanship" by criminal defense lawyers using the requirement of in-person testimony to their advantage.
Sitting at the defendants' counsel table with Friedman was Stanford Law School professor Jeffrey Fisher. Either Fisher or Friedman has argued the defense side in a series of cases that, since 2004, have revived the confrontation clause as a tool for defendants.

UPDATE -- at the argument, there was some talk about the word orthogonal:

University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman was trying to define the scope of the confrontation clause in oral arguments yesterday when he was called on to define another term: orthogonal.
Friedman used the word when he indicated that a justice’s question was not pertinent to the present case, according to The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times and the Washington Post. "I think that issue is entirely orthogonal to the issue here," he said. The word is a math term meaning things are perpendicular or at right angles, but Friedman used it to mean that two propositions are irrelevant, the BLT says.
That got the attention of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "I'm sorry. Entirely what?" he said.
"Orthogonal,” Friedman replied. “Right angle. Unrelated. Irrelevant."
Friedman tried to continue, but Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in. "What was that adjective? I liked that," he said.
"I think we should use that in the opinion," Scalia later added. “Or the dissent,” said Roberts.