Supreme Court affirms 11th Circuit...

... in US v. Dean. Chief Justice Roberts opens the opinion this way:

Accidents happen. Sometimes they happen to individuals committing crimes with loaded guns. The question here is whether extra punishment Congress imposed for the discharge of a gun during certain crimes applies whenthe gun goes off accidentally.

With that intro, it's not surprising that the Court said yes and affirmed the 11th Circuit.

In other news, the feds charged a man with trying to get rocket technology to South Korea. Curt Anderson has the story here:

A Korean-American who served prison time for attempting to broker the sale of deadly nerve gas bombs to Iran was indicted Wednesday on new charges of trying to help South Korea obtain advanced Russian rocket hardware and technology.
Investigators also found thousands of e-mails allegedly sent by Juwhan Yun, a 68-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Short Hills, N.J., involving other deals for sophisticated radar and air defense systems, short-wave infrared cameras, laser-guided bomb components and missile launch devices.
Yun is quoted in one e-mail as boasting that he has been "the largest one-stop supplier" of sensitive military and similar equipment for South Korea for the past 30 years.

"There is no constitutionally significant difference between masturbating in front of a minor in person versus doing so via web camera."

That's the Eleventh Circuit in USA v. Aldrich. Not sure I have anything to add to that one.

Moving on to other appellate news, the 11th Circuit reversed Judge Highsmith's sentence of probation for James Hendrick, "once Monroe County's powerful government attorney." Here's Jay Weaver's article and here's the opinion. The entire analysis on the sentencing is as follows:

The government cross-appeals Hendrick’s below-guidelines sentence. After
carefully reviewing the record and considering the arguments that the parties
briefed and orally argued, we agree with the government that the sentence is both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We accordingly vacate it and
remand for resentencing.

That's it? I understand (sort of) short opinions from appellate courts when they affirm, but to reverse with no analysis...

What say you dear readers? I have taken off moderation, so please be appropriate in the comments.

Cert petition denied for Sal Magluta

Here's the AP:

A reputed cocaine kingpin has lost his fight to reduce his 195-year prison term.
The Supreme Court, acting Monday, rejected an appeal from Salvador Magluta, who was convicted of laundering at least $730,000 in drug money and bribing a juror at an earlier trial. The federal appeals court in Atlanta threw out the bribery count, but otherwise upheld the lengthy sentence.
Magluta asked the high court to take his case to consider whether the government should have been barred from trying him again after a jury acquitted him in 1996 of charges based on the same conduct. He also disputed the sentence's length since the judge acknowledged he took into account money laundering charges on which the jury found Magluta not guilty.
The case is Magluta v. U.S., 08-731.

TalkLeft has coverage of the case here.

Here's $60K to go work somewhere else

Apparently some of the big firms in DC, Boston, and New York are paying people to take a year off and work at a public interest job. Here's the Boston Globe story. Any word of that happening here in Miami?

From the article:

With his degree from Harvard Law School due in June, Juan Valdivieso makes an attractive prospective hire, and last summer, he scooped up a postgraduation job offer from the white-shoe firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in his native Washington, D.C.

But as the recession deepens, budgets tighten - even at top-notch law firms. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius e-mailed Valdivieso last month that it would have to defer his employment for a year, until the fall of 2010. But the company threw him a lifeline: It would pay him a $60,000 stipend if he spent the year after graduation at an unpaid public service job. The 28-year-old is looking for work in an organization that will indulge his interest either in civil rights or consumer protection.

What up SDFLA?

It was a nice weekend, no? The weather was fantastic. It was cooler here than in New York this weekend.

Plus, the Heat won. Jermaine O'Neal is showing why we traded for him.


The Dolphins had a nice draft. We addressed our needs and got some big upside with our first couple of picks.

Too bad the Marlins are in a funk after starting the year 11-1... Getting swept back-to-back is ugly.

So what's on tap this week? We may get a verdict in the Liberty City 6 case. Any other trials starting up? Give me a shout and let me know what's going on...

Interesting news in DC -- the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case have hired lawyers, to be paid for by DOJ. Here's the BLT story on it. Those lawyers can get $200/hour, not to exceed 120 hours a month. Chump change for most of the biglaw former AUSAs being hired...

That's your Sunday night ramble.

Only in South Florida...

1. Law firm handling "Chinese dry wall" cases has that same problem in their office. (Palm Beach Post)

2. "Lauderdale Lakes woman stole ID to pay for tummy tuck, feds say." (Sun-Sentinel)

3. Mutual Benefits sealed documents to remain under seal. (Sun-Sentinel)

Roy Black interviewed on Helio case

Tom Withers, who runs the awesome Federal Criminal Defense Blog out of Savannah, Georgia, has this great interview of Roy Black. Check it out.

Here's the intro question and answer:

Q: Thanks for your time and congratulations on the not guilty verdicts in the Helio Castroneves case. Any indication from the government on whether they will retry the conspiracy count against Castroneves and his sister?

Mr. Black: No, but in our view, the government can't retry Helio on conspiracy because of collateral estoppel. If the jury found no tax deficiency on the substantive evasion counts, then there was no unlawful plan. An agreement to comply with the tax code is not a crime. Or, if the jury found no willfulness on the evasion counts, then there can be no willfulness on the conspiracy. Either way we win. At a minimum we get interlocutory review in 11th Circuit before we start any litigation on this issue, we will meet with the government and see what their views are. There are civil remedies the government should be satisfied with.

Here's a snippet about a funny part of the trial with Bob Bennett:

Q: How was the experience of trying this case with Bob Bennett out of Washington, D.C.? Anything you gained from observing his courtroom demeanor/preparation?

Mr. Black: I have known and worked with Bob before and he is a wonderful lawyer. Not just that but the has a great sense of humor which really connects with the jury. One of the funnier parts of the trial dealt with Hugo Boss suits. The government claimed Helio should have reported the income from getting free suits from them. Our defense was that Hugo Boss was a sponsor of the racing team and Helio had to wear the suits. The claim was pretty petty. The total retail value of the suits was around $12,000. The summary government expert even admitted the amount was not material to the return. I cross-examined the CEO of Hugo Boss about how wonderful their suits were and that they wanted to show them off by having a slim good looking guy like Helio wear them. Then Bob got up, stuck his stomach out (which I can attest goes pretty far) and asked how would the suits look on his body. The jury got a good laugh out of that.

The Fourth Amendment is not dead yet...

...not even in cars. See Arizona v. Gant, decided today (holding that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest).

The lineup of Justices is interesting -- Scalia votes with the majority while Breyer dissents. I think that right now Justice Scalia might be the most pro-defendant Justice on the Court. No joke.

In other news, check out this editorial in the DBR by Patricia Acosta in which she discusses the recent administrative order allowing reporters to bring in their cell phones, but prohibiting them from using them inside the courtrooms. Here's the conclusion:

A thawing of the federal freeze on electronic access? Hardly. The order — citing federal policies and rules adopted when television cameras were the size of refrigerators and blinding lights were needed to make them work — spells out that while the devices can be brought in, they cannot be used. Use, the order says, would “violate the sanctity of the courtroom and disrupt ongoing judicial proceedings.” Past administrative orders banned only the use of cell phones and cameras inside courtrooms but said nothing about text messaging or e-mailing. This bring-don’t-use rule does not, in my opinion, reasonably advance a legitimate judicial interest nor is it required by the old policies or rules. It assumes that texting is the same thing as 1960s-style broadcasting when that plainly is not the case. It also sets the stage for real disruption when all those BlackBerry-toting scribes rush for the exits after each key development to knock out a few lines, then try to get back in to see what they’ve just missed. The truth is that tapping text on silenced electronic devices is no more disruptive of courtroom proceedings than scribbling on a piece of paper, whispering in someone’s ear, a yawn, or a nod of the head in reaction to a ruling or a critical admission. No significant noise is created by the mere act of pressing the keys of a device to create or view a message. Federal judges themselves type electronic messages throughout trials and hearings. They know this does not disrupt the proceedings. Why then, the rule? It’s obvious. Once the tweeting starts, we’ll have real time, electronic reporting on big federal trials. This won’t harm the dignity of the proceedings, but it will further the case for letting video cameras in the door as well. Of course, the case for allowing that to happen was proven not only 30 years ago but also throughout the last 30 years of Florida state court history, so federal judges ought not be afraid that if they now allow a little twittering to go on, it will force them to do what they should have done long ago. We finally have reached the era where knowledge can be transmitted at the speed of light from almost any place. This technological advancement is here to stay and makes the world a better place. In the courtroom, it allows the journalist instantly to report the defendant’s gasp and the relative’s tears as the freshly rendered verdict shocks through the air. Thirty years ago, the spirit of openness drove seven courageous Florida judges to embrace a bold new technology that made our democracy better. Their federal colleagues need to start down that path somewhere. Tweet.