1. WPB juror in critical condition after being struck walking to courthouse.
2. Mike Mayo on the upcoming Ken Jenne sentencing.
3. Liberty City 7 defense starts up, via the AP's Curt Anderson.
4. Buzzzz off; litigation over the Bee Movie Slogan in Ft. Lauderdale, by Vanessa Blum, Sun-Sentinel.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
WSJ blog interviews Rick Diaz
Here.
I particularly liked this question and answer:
Was there ever a doubt that you were going to hand the case over to someone else?
I then got calls from all over the country from lawyers who called themselves First Amendment advocates. Some graciously offered help, others aggressively tried to take the case away from me. One lawyer accused me of not being an appellate advocate and threatened to contact my client and directly to solicit the case from him. So I wrote to Mr. Williams and I honestly told him that I was neither an appellate advocate nor a First Amendment expert but asked him what he wanted me to do. He essentially told me, “I’ve known you for 20 years as a street cop and I’ve seen you work in the federal court building for over 10 years. There’s nobody I want arguing my case in front of the Supreme Court except you.”
I particularly liked this question and answer:
Was there ever a doubt that you were going to hand the case over to someone else?
I then got calls from all over the country from lawyers who called themselves First Amendment advocates. Some graciously offered help, others aggressively tried to take the case away from me. One lawyer accused me of not being an appellate advocate and threatened to contact my client and directly to solicit the case from him. So I wrote to Mr. Williams and I honestly told him that I was neither an appellate advocate nor a First Amendment expert but asked him what he wanted me to do. He essentially told me, “I’ve known you for 20 years as a street cop and I’ve seen you work in the federal court building for over 10 years. There’s nobody I want arguing my case in front of the Supreme Court except you.”
Monday Morning Blogging
I took the kids to Disney World this weekend. Back to the stack of mail and phone messages that ensue from a couple days away from the office....
Anything new going on in the District? Email me with some tips.
There are two important lunches in the next two weeks.
First, the Anti-Defamation League is honoring my former boss, Edward Davis, and H.T. Smith. Professor Alan Dershowitz is the keynote speaker.
And next Wednesday, November 14, the Federal Bar Association will be honored with Eleventh Circuit Judges Rosemary Barkett and Stanley Marcus. They will be answering your questions, so please come prepared.
Anything new going on in the District? Email me with some tips.
There are two important lunches in the next two weeks.
First, the Anti-Defamation League is honoring my former boss, Edward Davis, and H.T. Smith. Professor Alan Dershowitz is the keynote speaker.
And next Wednesday, November 14, the Federal Bar Association will be honored with Eleventh Circuit Judges Rosemary Barkett and Stanley Marcus. They will be answering your questions, so please come prepared.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Government rests in Liberty City 7 case
Defense's turn.
Here's Jay Weaver's article.
And here's Curt Anderson's about the Rule 29 hearing.
This trial is moving much faster than everyone anticipated....
Here's Jay Weaver's article.
And here's Curt Anderson's about the Rule 29 hearing.
This trial is moving much faster than everyone anticipated....
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
News and Notes
Lots of district news:
1. Liberty City seven: The expert (Raymond Tanter) is testifying. If the defendants are convicted, this will be issue #1 on appeal. Reports from the Sun-Sentinel & Herald. (I've been told that the expert plans on writing a book about his trial experience in this case -- cross examination is today, so we'll find out more.)
2. Joe Cool: Although the government has yet to decide if it will seek the death penalty, defense lawyers have asked that Bill Matthewman be appointed for his expertise in death cases. (Via Sun-Sentinel). And despite the comments to previous posts, Judge Huck has indicated that he will probably set the trial in about six months -- plenty of time for both sides to prepare.
3. Julie Kay's NLJ column: Her first is here (Florida leads states in wage suits; clogging fed courts).
4. Coverage of US v. Williams oral argument, via HowAppealing:
"An anti-porn law that will survive?" Lyle Denniston has this post at "SCOTUSblog."
"Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law": Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that "High Court Surveys Child Pornography Law's Scope."
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that "High court weighs child porn law; Justices seek to establish whether a tool to punish online purveyors of illegal pictures infringes on the 1st Amendment."
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that "Court puts child porn law to test; Justices appear skeptical of challengers' arguments."
And The Miami Herald reports that "Child-porn law debated; The attorney for a former Miami-Dade officer argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that a law to curb child pornography is too broad."
"Supreme Court hears arguments over child-pornography law": McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.
"Supreme Court Takes Up Child Porn Case": This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today's broadcast of NPR's "Day to Day."
And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Orin Kerr has a post titled "Oral Argument in United States v. Williams."
1. Liberty City seven: The expert (Raymond Tanter) is testifying. If the defendants are convicted, this will be issue #1 on appeal. Reports from the Sun-Sentinel & Herald. (I've been told that the expert plans on writing a book about his trial experience in this case -- cross examination is today, so we'll find out more.)
2. Joe Cool: Although the government has yet to decide if it will seek the death penalty, defense lawyers have asked that Bill Matthewman be appointed for his expertise in death cases. (Via Sun-Sentinel). And despite the comments to previous posts, Judge Huck has indicated that he will probably set the trial in about six months -- plenty of time for both sides to prepare.
3. Julie Kay's NLJ column: Her first is here (Florida leads states in wage suits; clogging fed courts).
4. Coverage of US v. Williams oral argument, via HowAppealing:
"An anti-porn law that will survive?" Lyle Denniston has this post at "SCOTUSblog."
"Justices Hear Arguments on Internet Pornography Law": Linda Greenhouse has this article today in The New York Times.
Today in The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that "High Court Surveys Child Pornography Law's Scope."
David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that "High court weighs child porn law; Justices seek to establish whether a tool to punish online purveyors of illegal pictures infringes on the 1st Amendment."
In USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports that "Court puts child porn law to test; Justices appear skeptical of challengers' arguments."
And The Miami Herald reports that "Child-porn law debated; The attorney for a former Miami-Dade officer argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that a law to curb child pornography is too broad."
"Supreme Court hears arguments over child-pornography law": McClatchy Newspapers provide this report.
"Supreme Court Takes Up Child Porn Case": This audio segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Dahlia Lithwick appeared on today's broadcast of NPR's "Day to Day."
And at "The Volokh Conspiracy," Orin Kerr has a post titled "Oral Argument in United States v. Williams."
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Oral argument transcript from the Supreme Court
The transcript of today’s argument in United States v. Williams, argued by Rick Diaz, is now available here.
Rick Diaz and Lou Guerra to Washington
At 10 a.m today, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in United States v. Williams (06-694), asking whether a federal ban on pandering material believed to be child pornography is unconstitutional. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the petitioner, and Richard J. Diaz -- yes, that Rick Diaz -- will argue for the respondent. Louis Guerra will be joining Rick at counsel table.
Initially Judge Middlebrooks denied Diaz & Guerra's motion to dismiss. The 11th Circuit reversed. And the High Court granted cert.
Go get em Rick and Lou.
Initially Judge Middlebrooks denied Diaz & Guerra's motion to dismiss. The 11th Circuit reversed. And the High Court granted cert.
Go get em Rick and Lou.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Should Liberty City 7 jury hear from "radicalization" expert?
Yes, says Judge Lenard who is going to permit the government expert Raymond Tanter to testify as to how regular people become terrorists. From Vanessa Blum's article in the Sun-Sentinel:
The federal government's leading expert witness in its terrorism case against seven Miami men will take the stand this week to answer what may be the most pressing question facing law enforcement since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: How do ordinary individuals become terrorists?
In what will be the first testimony of its kind in a U.S. terrorism trial, Raymond Tanter is expected to tell jurors that most would-be terrorists start off as unremarkable individuals seeking a sense of belonging and purpose within an extremist group.Prosecutors want Tanter, a political science professor at Georgetown University, to tell jurors the seven defendants accused of plotting to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago fit that profile and were on a path likely to end in violence.
Tanter's testimony is based on a theory called the radicalization process. It is important to the government's case because the defendants — who have no Middle Eastern roots, mostly grew up in South Florida and practiced a blend of religions — may not fit jurors' notions about terrorists.Defense lawyers tried unsuccessfully to block Tanter from testifying, describing his theories as unscientific and too new to be considered reliable.
The federal government's leading expert witness in its terrorism case against seven Miami men will take the stand this week to answer what may be the most pressing question facing law enforcement since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: How do ordinary individuals become terrorists?
In what will be the first testimony of its kind in a U.S. terrorism trial, Raymond Tanter is expected to tell jurors that most would-be terrorists start off as unremarkable individuals seeking a sense of belonging and purpose within an extremist group.Prosecutors want Tanter, a political science professor at Georgetown University, to tell jurors the seven defendants accused of plotting to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago fit that profile and were on a path likely to end in violence.
Tanter's testimony is based on a theory called the radicalization process. It is important to the government's case because the defendants — who have no Middle Eastern roots, mostly grew up in South Florida and practiced a blend of religions — may not fit jurors' notions about terrorists.Defense lawyers tried unsuccessfully to block Tanter from testifying, describing his theories as unscientific and too new to be considered reliable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)