"DEA’s most corrupt agent: Parties, sex amid ‘unwinnable war’"

 That's the title of the AP's explosive report on DEA agents and federal prosecutors.  The article, by Jim Mustian and Joshua Goodman, is a must-read.

The story centers around testimony provided to federal prosecutors by former Miami and Colombia-based agent José Irizarry, who has been portrayed as the DEA’s most corrupt agent. Irizarry spent his final hours of freedom with the AP in his native Puerto Rico confessing his crimes before reporting to federal prison to begin a 12-year sentence for money laundering.

The article takes a wider look at other federal agents and prosecutors who he says turned a blind eye — and sometimes joined in — his flagrant abuses.

Among the AP investigation’s key findings:

1. Irizarry has described to federal investigators — and the AP — how other federal agents, prosecutors, informants and in some cases cartel smugglers all joined on a three-continent joyride known as “Team America” that chose cities for bulk cash pick-ups mostly for partying or to coincide with Real Madrid soccer or Rafael Nadal tennis matches. That included stops along the way in VIP rooms of Caribbean strip joints, Amsterdam’s red-light district and aboard a yacht in Cartagena, Colombia, that launched with plenty of booze, booming music and more than a dozen prostitutes.
2. An ongoing federal investigation has focused on one of Irizarry’s partners who was briefly detained on allegations of sexual assault during a trip to Madrid, Spain, in 2018. The agent’s brother, a Florida wedding photographer, has been jailed since March for civil contempt after he refused to provide testimony to a Grand Jury in Tampa even after being granted immunity.
3. Three current and former federal prosecutors have faced questioning about Irizarry's raucous parties, including one still in a senior role in Miami, another who appeared on TV’s “The Bachelorette” and a former Ohio prosecutor who was confirmed to serve as the U.S. attorney in Cleveland this year before abruptly backing out for unspecified family reasons.
4. Central to the Irizarry investigation are overly cozy relationships developed between agents and informants — strictly forbidden under federal guidelines — and loose controls on the DEA’s undercover drug money laundering operations that few Americans know exist but which generate a huge windfall every year for U.S. law enforcement. Spurred by Irizarry’s crimes, the new DEA Administrator Anne Milgram has ordered an outside review of the agency’s foreign operations.

Chief Judge William Pryor addresses the Federalist Society

He starts at the 24 minute mark here.

Judge Pryor’s speech is getting a lot of press.  Here’s an example from Reuters:

A prominent federal judge on Thursday called the growth of the conservative Federalist Society an "example of the American dream" and mocked criticism by a U.S. senator and others who say the influential legal group has captured the judiciary.

***

Federalist Society leaders advised on the selection of former President Donald Trump's judicial nominees, and many of Trump's appointees were members of the group. But Pryor mocked the notion that the 60,000-member professional organization was working "in the shadows" to reshape the courts.

"Little did I know that millions of American voters, that the past president of the United States and the United States senators only provided camouflage for the real operation," Pryor said.

Pryor singled out claims by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that a network of conservative causes and "dark money" groups are working together to seat judges and justices. Whitehouse could not immediately be reached for comment.

He also took aim at liberal commentators who frequently criticize the Federalist Society. Pryor displayed images that referenced some of those remarks, including one showing the group's logo on the Death Star from "Star Wars."

***

Leonard Leo, a long-time conservative legal activist, while serving as a Federalist Society executive helped compile a list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees that Trump drew from during his tenure.

"Are there members of the Federalist Society who are involved in that process? Of course. But with that, so what? That's politics," said Pryor, who was on Trump's Supreme Court lists.

"The idea that this is some kind of monolithic organization is just a myth," he said.

Meantime, Professor Steven Calabresi founded the organization many years ago, but apparently the Federalist Society is telling the good professor not to call himself the founder anymore because of his views.  

Sorry, Not Sorry, Sorry

By Michael Caruso

In the great Larry David movie “Clear History,” he plays a disgraced marketing executive who,  unsurprisingly, at various points in the story, creates drama for which he has to “apologize.” But, in Larry’s view, “Apologies don’t have to be sincere, it’s just the act of the apology itself. All that matters is if you’re acting sincere.”

As David’s readers know, a person’s “acceptance of responsibility” heavily influences the USSG guideline determination. The role of remorse at sentencing and a judge’s ability to accurately gauge a person’s remorse is an area of considerable debate. Professor Susan Blandes has written extensively on this subject. Her research demonstrates that there is currently no evidence that judges can accurately evaluate remorse in a courtroom. Conversely, she’s found evidence that race and other impermissible factors create hurdles to evaluating remorse. 

Moreover, her article notes there is little evidence that remorse is correlated with future law-abiding behavior or other legitimate penal purposes. There is evidence, however, that remorse is often conflated with shame, which correlates with increased future criminality. More research is needed. 

Recently, the phenomenal Havard history professor Jill Lepore wrote a review of a forthcoming book entitled Sorry, Sorry, Sorry: The Case for Good Apologies by Susan McCarthy and Marjorie Ingall. At SorryWatch.com and @SorryWatch, McCarthy and Ingall have been judging the adequacy of apologies and welcoming “suggestions for shaming” since 2012.

In her review, Lepore briefly traces the modern history of the apology. From 1665, she reproduces an apology for an unknown error: “I freely confesse, that I spake many words rashly, foolishly, & unadvisedly, of wch I am ashamed, & repent me of them, & desire all that tooke offence to forgive me.” She references Dave Chappelle, Alex Jones, and others for more recent events. And she offers an interesting contrast between a fictional character’s response to a prior forced apology: “I’m not some weak-kneed f****** crybaby that goes around f****** apologizing all the time,” he said, seething. “I’m done. I am done apologizing” with the actor’s real-life apology for an assault he committed: “You mess up. You own it. You learn from it.” 

Ultimately, Lepore comes to this conclusion about our current state of affairs: “some very angry people very loudly demanding apologies while other very angry people demand the denunciation of the people who are demanding apologies. The fracture widens and hardens—fanatic, schismatic, idiotic. But another way of thinking about what a culture of forced, performed remorse has wrought is not, or not only, that it has elevated wrath and loathing but that it has demeaned sorrow, grief, and consolation. No apology can cover that crime, nor mend that loss.”

Me? I’m sorry for stuff I haven’t even done yet.

Judges still handing out jail sentences in Varsity Blues case even though they may very well get reversed

Yesterday, a former Yale women's soccer coach got 5 months:

Prosecutors said Meredith from 2015 and 2018 accepted $860,000 from Singer in exchange for designating the children of wealthy parents as soccer recruits or attempting to facilitate their admission to New Haven, Connecticut-based Yale by other means.

Separately, Meredith also agreed to accept a $450,000 bribe directly from a California businessman without Singer's involvement to help his daughter gain admission.

But it's not clear that the government's theory of fraud will withstand scrutiny in the First Circuit:

A federal appeals court on Monday questioned whether two wealthy fathers convicted in the first "Varsity Blues" college admissions scandal trial were prejudiced by the introduction of evidence about misconduct by other parents they did not know.

During oral arguments, members of a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals probed what proof existed to establish former casino executive Gamal Aziz and private equity firm founder John Wilson agreed to participate in a sprawling, nationwide conspiracy.

"Maybe there's evidence of a nationwide conspiracy," U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron told a prosecutor. "You still have to prove evidence that these defendants agreed to be in it."

Fifty-three people have pleaded guilty. One parent was acquitted in June, while a coach who was convicted of accepting bribes recently won a new trial.

Prosecutors alleged that Aziz — a former Wynn Resorts Ltd executive also known as Gamal Abdelaziz — in 2018 paid $300,000 to secure his daughter's admission to the University of Southern California as a basketball recruit.

Prosecutors said Wilson paid $220,000 in 2014 to have his son falsely designated a USC water polo recruit and later in 2018 paid another $1 million to try to secure spots for his twin daughters at Stanford and Harvard universities.

Think about that -- 53 people pleaded guilty... that means defense lawyers, prosecutors, and judges went along with a questionable theory of crime simply because it was too risky to fight.  Our system is in trouble. 

Schools and courts closed Wednesday (UPDATED)

Nicole is coming. Mag court postponed till Thursday. Stay safe. 

UPDATED -- Federal courts back open in Miami on Thursday, but closed in Broward in Palm Beach.

Eleventh Circuit to Opine on Court's Use of 1789 law

By John R. Byrne

Ever seen a judge invoke the All Writs Act? Doesn't happen everyday. And now the Eleventh Circuit is going to weigh in on its use in the 3M MDL pending in the NDFLA. 

3M is fighting claims that it made defective earplugs that caused hearing loss. It’s been hit with some substantial jury verdicts in bellwether trials. Last summer, its subsidiary, Aearo Technologies, filed for bankruptcy, looking to stop other cases against 3M from going to trial. 3M has its own bankruptcy webpage and link to its pretty aggressive opening brief challenging the MDL proceedings here.

Judge Rodgers, presiding over the MDL, wasn’t having it. Citing the bankruptcy proceeding as an “undeniable” “threat to this court’s jurisdiction,” she enjoined 3M from attempting to freeze the MDL litigation and attacking her prior orders. And she did it using the ancient (and rarely invoked) All Writ’s Act, part of the Judicial Act of 1789. That Act allows federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate” to safeguard the integrity of ongoing proceedings and potential future proceedings before them, and to protect or effectuate their prior orders and judgments. There was good precedent allowing a District Judge to enjoin a litigant from challenging certain orders in bankruptcy court. This might be something civil and criminal litigants can use more often here in our district. 

But a few weeks back the Eleventh Circuit stayed Judge Rodgers’s order without comment. (SDFLA's own Judge Barbara Lagoa was on that Motion Panel.) It'll be interesting to see what the Eleventh Circuit does with this and if other judges in MDLs take advantage of the All Writs Act in connection with collateral proceedings. 

Judge Rodgers's order is below.

All Writs Act Order by John Byrne on Scribd

Dissents from denials from cert at SCOTUS

 There were some interesting dissents today at SCOTUS from denials of cert.  Professor Berman summarized the opinions here:

In Anthony v. Louisiana, Justice Sotomayor dissents from the denial of certiorari, joined by Justice Jackson, and her 15-page dissent concludes this way:

Our criminal justice system holds prosecutors to a high standard. The prosecutor is “the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty.” Berger, 295 U. S., at 88.  From that special role, “improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused when they should properly carry none.” Ibid....

These principles demand careful scrutiny of the rare cases in which a prosecutor takes the stand as a sworn witness in a jury trial.  Because this case presents one of the most egregious instances of prosecutorial testimony amounting to prosecutorial misconduct, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s refusal to issue a summary reversal.

in In Khorrami v. Arizona, Justice Gorsuch dissents from the denial of certiorari (which was not joined by Justice Kavanaugh, though he did indicate he would grant the petition).  His 10-page dissent starts and concludes this way:

The State of Arizona convicted Ramin Khorrami of serious crimes before an 8-member jury.  On appeal, Mr. Khorrami sought a new trial, arguing that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution guarantee individuals like him a trial before 12 members of the community....

For almost all of this Nation’s history and centuries before that, the right to trial by jury for serious criminal offenses meant the right to a trial before 12 members of the community.  In 1970, this Court abandoned that ancient promise and enshrined in its place bad social science parading as law.  That mistake continues to undermine the integrity of the Nation’s judicial proceedings and deny the American people a liberty their predecessors long and justly considered inviolable.  Today’s case presented us with an opportunity to correct the error and admit what we know the law is and has always been.  Respectfully, we should have done just that.

In Chinn v. Shoop, Justice Jackson dissents from the denial of certiorari, joined by Justice Sotomayor, and her 2-page dissent starts and concludes this way:

This is a capital case involving a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). There is no dispute that, during the capital trial of petitioner Davel Chinn, the State suppressed exculpatory evidence indicating that the State’s key witness, Marvin Washington, had an intellectual disability that may have affected Washington’s ability to remember, perceive fact from fiction, and testify accurately....

Because Chinn’s life is on the line, and given the substantial likelihood that the suppressed records would have changed the outcome at trial based on the Ohio courts’ own representations, see Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 112 (2011), I would summarily reverse to ensure that the Sixth Circuit conducts its materiality analysis under the proper standard.

Friday News & Notes

By John R. Byrne

Fun night at the Alfred I. DuPont building for the Federal Bar Association judicial reception and installation. Chief Judge Altonaga swore in Tal Lifshitz as FBA President. Nice speeches from him and outgoing FBA President Stephanie Casey.

For the football fans out there, the Washington Commanders may soon be up for sale. Maybe the reported Eastern District of Virginia USAO's criminal investigation of the team will drive down the price!

Controversy

Michael Caruso

As David's loyal readers know, this is a momentous year for the Supreme Court. The public's confidence in the Supreme Court is at a historic low, the Court's investigation of the Dobbs leak has not been resolved, and perhaps relatedly, there's been a significant push to force the Court to implement an ethics code. And the cases the Court will hear this year are noteworthy—affirmative action, voting rights, and the "independent state legislature doctrine," among others.

But because I'm not a very political person, I'm interested in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. Warhol, of course, was a pioneer of American pop art. Lynn Goldsmith is a groundbreaking artist and photographer.

Both Warhol and Goldsmith have significant connections to music. Warhol worked with The Velvet Underground, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, and many more. Goldsmith was one of the first woman rock photographers. The Supreme Court's case is about their art colliding.

In 1981, Goldsmith took this photo of Prince.


In 1984, around the time Prince released “Purple Rain,” Vanity Fair hired Warhol to create an image to accompany an article titled “Purple Fame.” The magazine paid Ms. Goldsmith $400 to license the portrait. In a series of 16 images, Warhol altered the photograph in various ways, notably by cropping and coloring it to create what his foundation’s lawyers described as “a flat, impersonal, disembodied, masklike appearance. Vanity Fair ran this image.


Litigation followed, focused on whether Warhol had transformed Goldsmith’s photograph. The Supreme Court has said, in a case involving Miami's own Luther Luke Campbell, a work is transformative if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message.”

The district court judge found that the Warhol series is "transformative" because it conveys a different message from the original and thus is "fair use" under the Copyright Act. But a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, declaring that judges "should not assume the role of art critic and seek to ascertain ... the meaning of the works at issue."

At the Supreme Court, there was a lively debate filled with pop culture references and marked by unusual laughter as justices invoked the Lord of the Rings books and movies, the Syracuse basketball team, and Cheerios cereal to illustrate their points. When Justice Thomas mentioned in passing that he had been a fan of Prince in the 1980s, Justice Kagan quipped: “No longer?” “Only on Thursday nights,” Thomas responded. (Party like it's 1789?).

Although this case may not impact our democracy, the outcome could shift the law to favor more control by the original artist, but doing that could also inhibit artists and other content creators who build on existing work. Stay tuned.

And if you're interested in Prince's music, here's a clip of an incendiary performance at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (he casually strolls out at 3:27 to light up the hall).

And as an update to a previous post, Brittney Griner has been held in a Russian jail for 259 days and counting.

The Chewbacca Defense

 I can't believe a prosecutor mentioned the Chewbacca Defense in closing and got away with it.  From United States v. Moise, the court quotes the prosecutors closing:

And I don’t want to seem flip, but some of you may have seen it. I think it’s a South Park episode. And there’s a character on there who is -- plays kind of a shyster attorney. And there’s a scene where he’s giving his closing, and he puts up a picture of a Wookie from Star Wars. And he said: That’s a Wookie. What does that have to do with this case? Nothing. That doesn’t make any sense. This case doesn’t make any sense.

Defense counsel objected and, at sidebar, argued that the prosecutor had implied he was a “shyster lawyer,” which the pros-ecutor disputed. The district court instructed the jury to disregard “those last couple of statements about the South Park episode,” and defense counsel did not request further relief. The prosecutor then continued with his argument that defense counsel was trying to distract the jury with irrelevant matters. The court also reminded the jury three times throughout the proceedings that statements made by attorneys are not evidence. Ultimately, the jury reached a guilty verdict on seventeen counts, but was unable to reach a verdict on the remaining six.

*** Alas, harmless error:

The parties agree to that the prosecutor’s “shyster” remark could have been perceived as an attack on the credibility or integ-rity of Moise’s counsel. We also agree that the remark was im-proper on that basis. See Young, 570 U.S. at 9 (attorneys “must not be permitted to make unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the opposing advocate”); United States v. McLain, 823 F.2d 1457, 1462 (11th Cir. 1987) (“[t]o discredit defense counsel in front of the jury is improper”), overruled on other grounds as stated in United States v. Watson, 866 F.2d 381, 385 n.3 (11th Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, we see nothing in the record to suggest that Moise was prejudiced by the “shyster” comment. It was a single, isolated remark in an eight-day trial, and we cannot say it perme-ated the entire trial. See Weinstein, 762 F.2d at 1542. It also came in rebuttal during otherwise proper argument that defense coun-sel’s contentions about the IRS’s initial calculations were not di-rectly relevant to Moise’s guilt or innocence. So despite the pejo-rative nature of the word “shyster,” the jury would have under-stood the prosecutor’s remark as a narrow response concerning the initial calculations, not as a general attack on defense counsel’s character.

Here's the scene from South Park, a classic:

Mentorship Opportunities in the SDFLA

By John R. Byrne

The latest issue of The Federal Lawyer carries an article by Judge Bloom spotlighting the Judicial Intern Academy and the Civil Discourse and Difficult Decisions program (“CD3”).  If you’re interested in mentoring high school or law students in our district, it’s a must read. I think nearly every federal judge in South Florida has participated in CD3 at this point. If you want to get involved in CD3 specifically, reach out to attorney Stephanie Turk, who, along with Judges Bloom and Rosenberg, helped export the program to other federal districts.

USAO goes after Miss Rhode Island for trying to get into Krome to see her boyfriend

North Bay Village Commissioner Convicted After Lying to See Lover in Detention Center https://t.co/MY9zuG2UBn

— NBC 6 South Florida (@nbc6) October 27, 2022

 Julianna Strout was also a North Bay Village Commissioner.  

From NBC6:

A North Bay Village commissioner who lied to get her way into a federal detention center so she could see her lover has been convicted, prosecutors said Thursday.

Julianna Clare Strout, 36, pled guilty to a federal information charging her with attempting to enter, and entering, a federal facility using fraud and false pretenses, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Following the guilty plea, Strout was sentenced to one-year probation and 50 hours of community service.

Prosecutors said the incident involving Strout happened in October 2021 at Krome Detention Center.

At the time, the detention center had temporarily suspended social visits because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but legal visits were still permitted.

Three times Strout entered Krome by lying to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials about her reason for visiting, prosecutors said.

Strout told officials that she worked as a paralegal for a law firm and that she needed to visit a detainee to have legal documents signed. Strout also presented officials with a letter on the law firm’s letterhead.

Seems so silly to be using our federal resources like this. 

SCOTUS deciding whether Lindsey Graham should have to testify before the grand jury

 CNN has a post about Justice Thomas' stay here.  

SCOTUS covers Graham's request for the stay.  And here is Georgia's response.

Of course, it's time to get rid of grand juries altogether.  They don't serve as protection for citizens in any respect and are simply a tool used by prosecutors to investigate and lock witnesses in.  A complete waste of resources if the goal is to act as a barrier between prosecutors and an indictment.

Klugh Takes his Talents to the Civil Side

 By John R. Byrne

The City of Miami has been sued for an "illegal" parking tax. It's a class action. One of the named plaintiffs? Criminal defense attorney Richard Klugh, who's now taking the good fight to the civil side of a court docket. The Miami Herald covers the case here (if you can make it through the pay wall....).

11th Circuit to live stream oral arguments

 The 11th Circuit is now going to audio stream all oral arguments.  The announcement is here:

The Court is pleased to announce oral arguments held in open court in all court locations will be live streamed – audio only – beginning October 25, 2022. The live stream may be accessed through the Court’s website (www.ca11.uscourts.gov). Audio recordings of oral arguments held in open court will continue to be posted on the Court’s website. Oral arguments in national security cases and other cases not heard publicly will not be live streamed and recordings of those arguments will not be posted on the Court’s website.

MDLs in the SDFLA

 

By John R. Byrne 

More and more multidistrict litigations (MDLs) are coming to our district. They’re often complicated and a lot of work goes into them, so, when the Joint Panel on Multi-District Litigation (JPML) assigns one to a judge, it’s considered an honor. The JPML is composed of federal judges from each Circuit selected by Chief Justice Roberts. They hold quarterly argument on whether to create a new MDL and, if so, where to send it. It's often a very big deal in the world of federal civil litigation. 

Some districts and judges are frequently assigned MDLs and come to be regarded as "MDL Districts" and "MDL Judges." As an example, Judge M. Casey Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida is on her second major mass tort MDL (this one about 3M earplugs) and is considered by many to be an "MDL Judge." (In 3M several of our SDFLA judges have travelled to Pensacola and presided over bellwether trials.)

The SDFLA has 7 pending (open) MDLs now (listing them below, oldest to newest, with a short summary on what they’re about; some are fairly old and probably not all that active). In terms of sheer numbers, we’re about in the middle of the pack, nationally. We should move up in the next few years. It would also be great to get one of our judges on the JPML (we’ve never had one serve on the JPML).

I'm going to try and blog more about the interesting aspects of MDLs, particularly as they relate to the SDFL and 11th Circuit.

Judge	Case Name	Case No.	Summary
Kenneth A. Marra	In re: Chiquita Brands International, Inc.	MDL-1916	Victims contend that Chiquita funneled approximately 1.7 million dollars to the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, a Colombian terrorist organization, during the Colombian civil war.
James Lawrence King	In re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation	MDL-2036	Customers challenging the overdraft fees charged by the federally chartered banks on the ground that the charges were exorbitant
Federico Moreno	In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation	MDL-2599	Takata made airbags for various car makers. Plaintiffs alleged they exploded, killing or injuring people.
K. Michael Moore	Liquid Toppings Dispensing System (Patent Litigation)	MDL-2832	Kona Ice--that company that sells shaved ice from trucks with a penguin on it--alleged the competitors stole their topping dispensing system.
Darrin P. Gayles	In re: MONAT Hair Care Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation	MDL-2841	Claim is that products that were supposed to promote healthy hair growth did the opposite, causing hair loss and scalp irritation.
Robin L. Rosenberg	In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation	MDL-2924	Claim is that ranitidine—an ingredient in Zantac and other heartburn drugs—causes cancer and that drug manufacturers knew it.
Cecilia M. Altonaga	In re: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation	MDL-2989	Litigation over Robin Hood Securities’ handling of “meme stocks”—stocks whose price is being mostly driven by social media postings.
Rodolfo A. Ruiz	In re: Mednax Services, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation	MDL -2994	Mednax (now called Pediatrix) is a company in the health care space. In June 2020, its e-mail system was breached, potentially compromising the personally identifiable and health-related information of nearly two million individuals. Lawsuits ensued.
Raag Singhal	In re: Johnson & Johnson Sunscreen Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation	MDL-3015	Claim is that sunscreen manufactured by J&J defendants contained excessive amounts of benzene, a carcinogen linked to leukemia and other cancers.

 

S.D. Fla. Ties to Trump Investigation

 By John R. Byrne

A lot of South Florida connections to the ongoing DOJ investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents. Last Thursday, one of our district’s alums, Kash Patel, reportedly appeared before the grand jury. Patel was an AFPD down here before rising to high level positions within the Trump administration (the last being Chief of Staff to the Secretary of Defense).

According to reports about the investigation, no charging decision will be made before the November elections.

Parkland and the Future of the Death Penalty

 

By John R. Byrne

Fallout continues from the death penalty phase of the Parkland shooter. The Sun Sentinel covers recent court rulings on Florida’s death penalty here. Before 2016, Florida law allowed just a majority of jurors to recommend the death penalty to a judge. In Hurst v. Fla., 577 U.S. 92 (2016), the Supreme Court overturned that law in an 8-1 decision. Although Florida law now requires a unanimous jury vote recommending death, there is talk of changing the law (Alabama allows a 10-2 vote, for example). 

Should judges be elected or appointed?

We've had this debate on the blog for many years, and there is no good solution.

We all just wanted judges who are hard-working, nice, fair and will grant a continuance! 

Well, there are 5 judges on the Florida Supreme Court who are up for "retention," which means they can be voted out.  But that never happens. Here's an article from the Tampa Bay Times that discusses what's up:

Five of the seven sitting justices on the Florida Supreme Court are on the November ballot for a retention vote.

Florida’s Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor. But voters decide whether the justices should be retained; such votes are conducted in the first general election that occurs more than a year after a justice’s appointment, and again every six years.

The state’s highest court has the final say in some of the major issues facing Floridians. That includes final orders imposing the death penalty, district court decisions declaring a provision of the state Constitution or a statute invalid, certain orders from the Public Service Commission on utility rates or services, and issues that it decides are of great public importance, such as whether the privacy clause in the state’s Constitution includes abortion

.

The five that are up are Justices Canady, Couriel, Grosshans, Labarga, and Polston.