Another pitch for cameras

David Ovalle has taken up using Periscope in state court, posting short video clips of court proceedings on Twitter. It's actually a great service to court watchers and it's very interesting. Of course the feds are way too crusty to allow anything like that, which is a shame. Just to get into the federal courthouse has become a burden, with people being turned away for random reasons. Instead of a courthouse, it's beginning to feel like a fortress.

Some news from the 6th, 7th & 8th Circuits:

Add the 6th Circuit to the list of courts getting the cell-site data case wrong.

The 7th Circuit addresses strip club ordinances: "This case requires us to visit the world of strip clubs—establishments that no one seems to want, officially, but that are somehow quite lucrative."

And the 8th Circuit discusses Halliburton and securities laws.  It's a pretty interesting read.  Here's the Reuters analysis:

After several years of litigation, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank of St. Paul, Minnesota, certified a class of Best Buy shareholders. Investors could not bring fraud claims based on the Sept. 14 press release, the judge said, because it was a forward-looking statement covered by the safe-harbor provision in securities laws. But he ruled statements during the analyst call about the company’s present performance were not protected by the safe-harbor provision. Judge Donovan found that lead counsel from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd had established the price impact of the alleged misrepresentations by showing the sharp drop in Best Buy’s stock price when the supposed fraud was revealed in December.
On Tuesday, a divided three-judge panel at the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that class certification decision. The court’s opinion is the first federal circuit court analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund – and it’s quite a boon for defendants in securities class actions. Best Buy’s lead counsel, Joseph McLaughlin ofSimpson Thacher & Bartlett, called the decision “a blueprint” for securities defendants hoping to capitalize on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Comments?

So Above the Law has decided to nix comments permanently.  What do you think?


I can't get the poll to work here, so click on this link to vote.

Above The Law has gotten rid of comments. Should SDFLA Blog delete comments?

Above The Law has gotten rid of comments. Should SDFLA Blog delete comments?

Yes, the comments are offensive.

Yes, the comments do not add anything.

Yes, unless they are willing to sign their name.

No, the comments are entertaining.

No, who cares. Let people say what they want.

pollcode.com free polls

"I barely have clout in my own court as a senior judge, much less clout in somebody else's court."

That was Judge Huck commenting on whether he would get any special breaks in small claims court.  The DBR has more:

Small claims court might not be the place you'd expect to see a host of heavy hitters in the Miami legal community.
But a Miami-Dade County Court tussle over a $75 fee at the exclusive Riviera Country Club has a "who's who" list of plaintiffs, including a federal judge, a state appellate judge and high-profile attorneys.
U.S. Senior District Judge Paul Huck and Third District Court of Appeal Judge Frank Shepherd are the first two named plaintiffs on the lawsuit against the Coral Gables club.
The judges and the four other plaintiffs, all self-represented, are suing the club to resolve a dispute about senior membership, which is available to club members over 70 who have been members for at least 25 years. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment and seeks no damages.
...The other plaintiffs, who are or expect to be senior members, include attorneys Raul Valdes-Fauli of Fox Rothschild in Miami, Abigail Watts-Fitzgerald of Devine Goodman Rasco Watts-Fitzgerald in Coral Gables and solo practitioner Philip Brawner of Coral Gables.
Senior members of the club are not allowed to vote on club matters, but the club agreed to freeze their dues and never charge them future assessments, according to the Feb. 1 complaint.
The club is calling the $75 monthly charge a capital fee, but the plaintiffs contend it's an assessment and they shouldn't have to pay it.

Tough sentencing hearing

What should a judge do when a jury completely rejects the government's case (acquits of all felony charges) but convicts of a sole misdemeanor count?  This issue came up at yesterday's sentencing of former Massey CEO Don Blankenship. The case involved allegations of a cover up of an explosion that killed 29 people. The judge gave the maximum 1-year sentence.  From the AP:

Standing before a federal judge, former coal company executive Don Blankenship expressed sorrow for the families of 29 men killed in his coal mine six years ago but contended that he committed no crime.
"I just want to make the point that these men were proud coal miners. They've been doing it a long time. And they'd want the truth of what happened there to be known," Blankenship said Wednesday, drifting closer toward mentioning his theory that an act of nature, not negligence, caused the deadly explosion in his mine.
The judge told him to stop talking about the explosion and handed down the stiffest sentence allowed for his misdemeanor conviction: one year in prison and a $250,000 fine. ***
A federal jury convicted Blankenship on Dec. 3 of a misdemeanor conspiracy to violate mine safety standards at Upper Big Branch. The jury acquitted him of felonies that could have extended his sentence to 30 years.
The trial wasn't about what caused the explosion, and the judge made that painstakingly clear. U.S. District Judge Irene Berger also ruled that family members couldn't speak at Wednesday's sentencing for similar reasons, saying they weren't eligible for restitution and the cause of the explosion wasn't up for debate in the case.
At Upper Big Branch, four investigations found worn and broken cutting equipment created a spark that ignited accumulations of coal dust and methane gas. Broken and clogged water sprayers then allowed what should have been a minor flare-up to become an inferno.
Blankenship disputes those reports. He believes natural gas in the mine, and not methane gas and excess coal dust, was at the root of the explosion.
Blankenship rose from a meager, single-mother Appalachian household to become one of the wealthiest, most influential figures in the region and in the coal industry, and someone who gives back to the community, the judge noted Wednesday.
"Instead of being able to tout you as one of West Virginia's success stories, however, we are here as a result of your part in a dangerous conspiracy," Berger said.
During the trial, prosecutors called Blankenship a bullish micromanager who meddled in the smallest details of Upper Big Branch. They said Massey's safety programs were just a facade — never backed by more money to hire additional miners or take more time on safety tasks.
Blankenship's attorneys believe he shouldn't have gotten more than a fine and probation, and have promised to appeal. They embraced Blankenship's image as a tough boss, but countered it by saying he demanded safety and showed commitment to his community, family and employees.

More on the possibility of Judge Pryor moving to SCOTUS

The Heritage Foundation gave it short list of judges, and Judge Pryor tops the list:

In addition to an in-depth knowledge of the law and a settled judicial philosophy, a judge must have the backbone to withstand the inevitable onslaught of withering criticism from the mainstream media and the societal elites, cognoscenti, and other habitués who frequent the Georgetown and New York cocktail circuits without moderating his or her view to please them. Although he was speaking about his religious beliefs at the time, Scalia’s words could just as easily apply to conservative judges: “Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. … And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world.”
While there are a number of well-respected organizations within the conservative movement whose views should be solicited and considered, the following non-exclusive list of current judges illustrates the kind of highly qualified, principled individuals the new president should consider—after a thorough review of their backgrounds, records, legal acumen, judicial philosophies, and intestinal fortitude—for nomination to the Supreme Court.


William Pryor Jr. (Judge, 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)
The former Alabama attorney general made headlines in 2004 when President George W. Bush recess appointed him to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, where he was subsequently confirmed. While he was considered by some as controversial in 2004, during his 12 years on the bench, Pryor has established himself as a serious and thoughtful jurist, and has written on a variety of important issues. He is also a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.