Big cases

1. The government has moved to disqualify the Federal Public Defender's office in the Joe Cool case. Here's an article covering the latest from the hearing. Judge Huck is considering the motion and hasn't ruled yet.

2. Narseal Batiste is still on the stand in the Liberty City 7 case. Here's the latest from Jay Weaver:

In effect, Batiste and his lawyer, Ana Jhones, tried to leave a dozen Miami-Dade jurors with the impression that the ringleader only talked about waging holy war as a ruse to obtain big bucks from Assad."I wanted the money for support. That was the only reason I was there," said Batiste, who was barely scraping by as he tried to launch a religious group called the Moorish Science Temple in a concrete warehouse in Liberty City. The religion blends Christianity, Judaism and Islam.Batiste also testified that al-Saidi coached him to put on a "show" for Assad, saying that he would likely get his money if he provided details of a terror plot to the Middle Eastern contact."If you're going to get this support, you have to do something," Batiste recalled al-Saidi telling him before Assad's arrival in December 2005."The only plan I had was to clean up our community," Batiste testified.

Liberty City 7 defendant takes stand!

Yesterday, Narseal Batiste took the stand in his own defense. According to Vanessa Blum:

Batiste, who seemed at ease as he spoke to the jury, said the events leading to his June 2006 arrest began with his desire to raise money for a non-profit religious organization in Liberty City.

Asked if his group, the Universal Divine Saviors, received many donations, Batiste responded, "Quite frankly, if I'd received donations, I probably wouldn't be sitting here right now. So the answer is no."

I agree with the commentors in the article that it's a high-risk strategy, but it's one the defense had to take. Based on how these guys were portrayed, the only way a jury is going to rule for them is to think of them as real people who were just trying to get by, not terrorists. Stay tuned...

District news and notes

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.

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.”

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.

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....

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."

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.