Has the SDFLA become the new rocket docket?

The Eastern District of Virginia traditionally has been referred to as the "rocket docket" because of the speed in which it disposes of cases. There is even a EDVA blog called The Rocket Docket. Other districts -- like the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California -- have also been saddled with that moniker.

Criminal cases in these districts generally get tried within 70 days, absent extraordinary circumstances. And even then, the parties are lucky to get one short continuance.

This is not a good thing for criminal defendants, especially those charged with complicated document cases in which the government has been investigating for years. It puts them in a position of going to trial (where the deck is already quite stacked against them) without as much preparation as needed.

Unfortunately, our District is quickly moving toward "rocket docket" status, if we haven't achieved it already. We haven't gotten to the point where motions to continue are flat out denied, but recently, many judges in this District have started granting only very short continuances and saying that's it. Cases involving millions of documents are being forced to trial within a few months after indictment. One judge recently commented that a criminal defense attorney need not go through all of the documents because the client knows which ones are relevant.

There are still judges (I count 4 or 5) who will give the parties the time they need to prepare. But many others have hopped onto the idea that the way to go is to deny continuance requests.

I'm not really sure why the District has shifted so dramatically in recent years. I guess it forces more pleas and less trials. We have too few trials already, so this can't be a good thing for the justice system. Even though I think the policy generally hurts criminal defendants, I don't think prosecutors enjoy the rocket docket either.

What are your thoughts? Do we have a rocket docket here in South Florida? Is that a good thing?

Back to work...

...on a soggy Tuesday.

Hope everyone had a nice weekend. Some quick hits to start your week:

1. Rumpole is talking about the new drivers license cases.

2. SFL doesn't like the Herald's Kindle edition. But he does like the Kindle, as do I. I use it more for books than newspapers. My wife has the Ipad and as I'll take the Kindle for reading a book any day.

3. The Supreme Court is hearing lots of ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Martha Coyle has an interesting piece on the "revolution" that has started on these cases.

4. Teachers are protected from bottle rocket injuries to students.

5. Tony Mauro is discussing all the summary dispositions at the High Court this Term.

6. And for those keeping score (on a nice chart), David Frederick argued the most cases before the Supremes this Term.

I will check back soon with more.

Happy 4th

Thursday news and notes

1. Elena Kagan had another good day yesterday answering questions. Here's one funny exchange, where Senator Specter one-ups her:



2. The Herald reports here that the government actually sent an apology to Sergio Masvidal, who was represented by Joe DeMaria. He's the banker that the government and American Express agreed to blackball. It's a remarkable letter, which admits that the secret side-deal isn't DOJ policy:

Government apology to Sergio Masvidal

“Like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant.”

That was Elena Kagan yesterday at her confirmation hearings when asked where she was on Christmas day when a would-be terrorist was trying to blow up a plane over Detroit. (For more great quotes, see AboveTheLaw here).

Today is day 3. It's tough to watch the Senators drone on, but Kagan is doing a nice job. She's witty and professorial. It's interesting to compare her to Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor. Kagan is certainly Roberts' equal, although they have very different styles. Roberts came across as the quintessential appellate judge, while Kagan is the professor. Both get A's for their performances. Alito and Sotomayor also had similar performances but again much different styles.

The hearings seem to try and get candidates to explain how they will judge or what they think judging entails. Of course, the nominees try not to answer these questions. But you get a sense of the person by how they answer the questions. Kagan (like Roberts) comes across as bright, witty, and engaging -- and certainly qualified.