Local AUSA Mike Garofola to be on The Bachelorette

Thanks to numerous tipsters, the buzz around the courthouse is now confirmed -- Assistant United States Attorney Mike Garofola will be a contestant on the new season of The Bachelorette.  He will be competing with two dozen other men for the love and affection of Desiree Hartsock.

He's used to competing, beating out hundreds of applicants for a federal clerkship and then a job at the United States Attorney's Office.  And as a trial lawyer, he's used to performing for an audience.  So he stands a good chance.

Here's a picture of AUSA Garofola from one of the upcoming episodes in which the contestants play dodgeball:

        

And here's Desiree:






























I asked the U.S. Attorney's office for comment, and Alicia Valle on the office's behalf said: "We wish him luck."  I like that they were good sports about it.

UPDATE -- the initial post had his name misspelled.  It has been corrected, I hope.

UPDATE #2 -- some additional pictures of Mike:

Justice Scalia on childhood in NY

New York Magazine has an interesting series with people describing their childhood in New York.  Justice Scalia is one of them:

It is amazing how many of the names of the kids in this class I remember. The teacher standing in the back—that was a lady named Consuela Goins, and she was a wonderful teacher. Every cloud has a silver lining, and one of the benefits of the exclusion of women from most professions was that we had wonderful teachers, especially the women who today would probably be CEOs. My first crush was a girl in this class whose name was Theresa. She’s the one standing to the right of Mrs. Goins. She’s good-looking; I always had good taste. Hugh McGee was generally the class troublemaker—in the middle seat on the right, two girls behind him and two boys in front of him. He was a really smart student, but he was always getting into trouble.

April Fools

Hope everyone had a nice spring break.  Now back to business.

1.  Adam Liptak doesn't care for Justice O'Connor's book "Out of Order."  From Sunday's review:

The book is short and padded. The main part, only 165 pages long, is interrupted by stock photographs and curious, unexplained editorial cartoons. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are included in an appendix. They are surely worth rereading from time to time, but their main purpose here seems to be to add some bulk to a very skimpy effort.

The illustrations are particularly infuriating markers of missed opportunities. In one cartoon from 1981, the year O’Connor joined the court, the Rev. Jerry Falwell is seen on his knees, praying and crying, as she swings in what looks like one of the scales of justice. He is not mentioned in the text, and the reader is left to guess at what he is so worked up about. That he wants O’Connor to vote to strike down Roe v. Wade? (She was, as it turned out, an author of a 1992 joint opinion reaffirming its core, also not discussed in the book.) 

...

The larger problem is not that Justice O’Connor’s little sketches and lessons are wrong. Quite the contrary. The problem is that they are empty. She writes, correctly, that “the court’s only weapon is its moral authority.” But she refuses to give this and similar sentiments substance.

In retirement, she writes, she has “taken up the cause of promoting civics education in our nation’s schools.” But civics are just a skeleton. They need the flesh of argument to come to life, to have bite, to matter.

 2.  Tony Mauro says enough is enough and wants cameras in the High Court.  He is absolutely correct:

Inside the U.S. Supreme Court last week, the justices were doing what they do best: dissecting a difficult legal issue — this time same-sex marriage — in the intense back-and-forth of oral argument.

Over two illuminating mornings, the justices and top-notch advocates worked through most of the pros and cons of giving same-sex marriage constitutional protection — or instead letting the political process continue the debate.
Outside the court, however, the scene was less noble. People seeking seats for the oral arguments were forced to wait in line, with some arriving five days earlier. Tents were pitched, and money changed hands, with some paying as much as $6,000 to a line-waiting service for the chance of securing a seat inside. Inevitably things got messy, and the line seemed more befitting of a music hall or an Apple store on the eve of the release of a new iPhone.
In one sense, the avid interest of those in line was a healthy sign that people really care about the issue and about how the Supreme Court — their Supreme Court — would handle it.
In another sense, it was a disgrace. The notion that spectators have to camp out or spend money to see a public institution do public business is offensive. It is the direct result of the court's arrogant and stubborn refusal to allow cameras to record and broadcast its proceedings. Some of those waiting for days for seats might still do so if cameras were allowed, but it is a safe bet that most would have preferred to watch the oral arguments in the comfort of home on C-SPAN rather than wait in line over several cold and snowy days in March.
While the public shivers, the justices — newcomers and veterans alike — refuse to give in to the reasonable demands of the information age. They are fearful of the changes that cameras might trigger in the dynamics between justices and advocates and with each other — as if the court were a fragile flower, instead of the sturdy institution it is, an institution that usually holds up well under public scrutiny.

3.  Rumpole, posting to this NY Times article on Project Mercy, asks if we have any Judge Gleesons in the Southern District of Florida.  Do we?

5.  Justice Scalia says he should be the "pinup of the criminal defense bar."  Via the Washington Post.

6.  Your Jeffrey Toobin moment of zen:

Congrats to Hurricanes on a great season

Tough way to go out, but what a fun ride.  ACC regular season champs.  ACC tourney champs.  Sweet 16.

Meantime, the Chief Justice is a victim of credit card fraud.  First it was Justice Breyer who was a crime victim, and now Justice Roberts.  From the AP:

Justice John Roberts has been a victim of credit-card fraud.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said someone got hold of one of Roberts's credit card account numbers. The court did not provide any other details.

But the Washington Post's In the Loop column, which first reported the item, said Roberts told the cashier at a Starbucks in suburban Maryland that he had to use cash for his morning coffee because he canceled the card after discovering that someone else had the numbers.

The Chief Justice was never defense friendly, but this won't help any.  I would like someone to do the stats on whether Justice Breyer has been worse on criminal justice issues since his home was broken into.

Hope everyone had a nice spring break.  Back to regular blogging on Monday.

Jason Dimitris named county court judge.

He's a former AUSA.

Rumpole and Captain have all of the details over at the Justice Building Blog.

Rumpole still barking up the wrong tree with Scalia

Rumpole and I have long disagreed about Justice Scalia.  We've been debating his jurisprudence at least as far back as 2009. See also here.  Well, Scalia has proved Rumpole wrong again as Justice Scalia ruled in favor of the 4th Amendment yesterday in the Florida drug dog case, Florida v. Jardines. But strangely he is still criticizing him in today's post.

 David Ovalle has the details in the Herald article here and he has been tweeting all of the Miami trivia and references to the case over the past 24 hours, including that Judge Will Thomas was vindicated for his ruling and that local Miami cops attended the Supreme Court argument.

In other bad news for police officers, a Ft. Lauderdale jury (before Judge Cohn) ruled that Anthony Caravella (who was cleared by DNA evidence) was set up by two police officers and is entitled to $7 million.  Paula McMahon for the Sun-Sentinel has the story and has been doing great work covering the federal courts in Broward. Here's the intro:

The 9,389 days Anthony Caravella wrongfully spent in prison still haunt him, but he was relieved Tuesday that two former police officers who put him away are finally being held accountable.
Jurors decided that William Mantesta and George Pierson framed Caravella, then a mentally challenged 15 year old, for the 1983 rape and murder of a Miramar woman and should pay him $7 million for the close to 26 years he spent in prison.
The city of Miramar or its insurers may have to pay some or all of the judgment against the former detectives, but legal experts said Caravella, now 44, has a good chance of collecting the money — plus his lawyer's fees and costs.
Former Miramar officer Bill Guess and retired Broward Sheriff's Major Tony Fantigrassi were found not liable after the five-week civil rights trial in federal court in Fort Lauderdale.
"I feel good that it's over with," said Caravella, now 44. "I feel like it took a long time but I'm just glad that everybody knows what happened — that's what I feel good about."
The eight jurors unanimously found Mantesta and Pierson liable. Both men acted with malice or reckless indifference to Caravella, who had an IQ of 67, violated his constitutional rights against being maliciously prosecuted, coerced him into confessing and withheld evidence that could have cleared him soon after his arrest, the jurors decided. DNA set him free in 2009.
"I was worried. I was afraid they were going to get away with it," Caravella said.
His lawyer in the civil suit, Barbara Heyer said: "The system really does work. Truth actually does prevail."

RIP Anthony Lewis (UPDATED with Scalia opinion in favor of 4th Amendment)

He wrote Gideon’s Trumpet and covered the Supreme Court.  From the NY Times obit:

As a reporter, Mr. Lewis brought an entirely new approach to coverage of the Supreme Court, for which he won his second Pulitzer, in 1963.

“He brought context to the law,” said Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the University of Washington who compiled a bibliography of Mr. Lewis’s work. “He had an incredible talent in making the law not only intelligible but also in making it compelling.”

Before Mr. Lewis started covering the Supreme Court, press reports on its decisions were apt to be pedestrian recitations by journalists without legal training, rarely examining the court’s reasoning or grappling with the context and consequences of particular rulings. Mr. Lewis’s thorough knowledge of the court’s work changed that. His articles were virtual tutorials about currents in legal thinking, written with ease and sweep and an ability to render complex matters accessible.

“There’s a kind of lucidity and directness to his prose,” said Joseph Lelyveld, a former executive editor of The Times. “You learned an awful lot of law just from reading Tony Lewis’s accounts of opinions.”

Mr. Lewis wrote several books, two of them classic accounts of landmark decisions of the Warren court, which he revered. Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Supreme Court from 1953 to 1969, corresponding almost precisely with Mr. Lewis’s years in Washington.

One of those books, “Gideon’s Trumpet,” concerned Gideon v. Wainwright, the 1963 decision that guaranteed lawyers to poor defendants charged with serious crimes. It has never been out of print since it was published in 1964.

“There must have been tens of thousands of college students who got it as a graduation gift before going off to law school,” said Yale Kamisar, an authority on criminal procedure who has taught at the University of Michigan and the University of San Diego. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court this morning will hear the first of two gay-marriage cases.  There were long lines to get into the Court and line-holders were paid handsomely to get one of the few seats.  The lawyers for both sides made the list of top 100 influential lawyers in the United States by the National Law Journal.  

Italy's High Court overturned the acquittal of Amanda Knox.  I doubt she will be going back voluntarily.  I wonder what the U.S. will do if Italy seeks her extradition.

UPDATE -- Yes, Justice Scalia is a defendant's best friend again -- this time in a dog-sniffing 4th Amendment case:

A 5-4 decision (SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY and BREYER, JJ., joined.).

First paragraph:

We consider whether using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

Last paragraph answer:

The government’s use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is therefore affirmed.


Congrats to Miami PD Howard Blumberg for this victory!

HT: CC.

Monday notes

1.  Rand Paul: People Shouldn’t Smoke Pot, But They Shouldn’t Go To Jail for Non-Violent Drug Crimes (via Slate):

Liberals are likely scratching their heads today, wondering how a man with whom they disagree on so many things could have uttered such sensible views when it comes to drug policy and the criminal justice system in the United States. In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said that while he doesn’t want to legalize drugs, he also doesn’t think people should spend time behind bars for non-violent drug crimes. Paul’s statement came on the heels of a bill he introduced with Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, that would give judges greater flexibility in adhering to mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, notes the Washington Post.

While arguing against mandatory minimum sentences for smoking pot, Paul pointed out that both President Bush and President Obama could have seen their lives destroyed by marijuana-related arrests, reports the Hill. “Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use,” Paul said. “Look what would have happened. It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky. But a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don’t get lucky. They don’t have good attorneys. They go to jail for these things. And I think it’s a big mistake.” Host Chris Wallace replied with a laugh: "Actually, I think it would be the last three presidents, but who's counting?"

2.  John Pacenti does an in depth piece on Lewis Tein and its lawyer Paul Calli:

Lewis Tein hired attorney Paul Calli, a partner at Carlton Fields in Miami, to handle its defense against the civil charges brought by the Miccosukees.Calli has called for sanctions against the tribe in federal court, saying the lawsuit "is a political ploy, attempting to blame the Lewis Tein firm (along with the tribe's former officers, employees, lawyers, accountants and bankers) for internal issues relating to the tribe's business and legal affairs.""The tribe and its lawyer know (or should know) that the tribe's complaint is not supported by facts and law," he wrote in the Oct. 15 pleading. Cooke has taken under advisement the firm's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.Miami criminal defense attorney William Barzee, a supporter of the firm, noted Billie is up for re-election in November."This lawsuit seems nothing more than politics, a means to an end — an effort by current one-term chairman Colley Billie to stay in office by maligning Billy Cypress to prevent him being re-elected," Barzee said. "Lewis Tein and Dexter Lehtinen and the others suffer as collateral damage, casualties in the tribe's internal political blood feud."

3.  The Canes are in the Sweet Sixteen.  They escaped Illinois yesterday, which was a tough matchup for them, but matchup well against Marquette this Thursday.

4.  Rumpole has some good stuff over at his blog this morning on bonds and why judges get stung when they let someone out who flees but never get credit when defendants show up.  The Herald article that he discussed leads to way too many people who should be on bond getting detained.