1. Ben Kuehne. The feds decided to drop the obstruction count, but added a wire fraud count:
Federal prosecutors have added and subtracted charges in the money-laundering indictment brought against prominent Miami attorney Ben Kuehne and two others.
In a superseding indictment filed Friday, the Justice Department added a wire-fraud conspiracy count but dropped an obstruction of justice charge.
2. Trials. in 2007, the SDFLA had 155 trials, more than any other district, followed by SDNY (108), MDFL (108), SDTX(106) and WDTX(105). In fact, we had more trials than the entire 1st Circuit, and almost as many as the 3rd and 10th Circuits.
3. Libery City 7. Vanessa Blum examines why the government is having so much trouble in this case -- perhaps it was because they arrested too early:
The failure of federal prosecutors to convict any members of an alleged South Florida terror cell after two trials highlights the obstacles in a legal strategy of arresting terror suspects before they strike.That approach, known as preemption, has been the Justice Department's mandate since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, drove home the potentially lethal consequences of not acting soon enough to stop terrorism.But moving too quickly may have doomed the so-called Liberty City 7 case by leaving prosecutors without sufficient evidence to back up their sensational allegations that the men wanted to launch a ground war against the U.S. government.Violent rhetoric caught on tape from the group's leader and a grainy video of the defendants swearing an oath of allegiance to al-Qaida have not been enough to convince jurors the men were conspiring to join forces with the terror group and not, as defense lawyers argued, simply playing along in a scheme for money.
4. There is a white collar seminar in the Middle District coming up with some impressive speakers.
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
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Jose Padilla to the Supermax
Jose Padilla was transferred today to Florence, Colorado -- commonly known as the Supermax -- to serve his 17 year sentence.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Judge Martinez speaks at the Federal Bar Association today
As expected, he was entertaining and the turnout to see him speak was great.
Apparently, the judges have been delayed moving into the new building because GSA forgot to order them the audio-visual equipment. This is not even funny anymore!
The buzz at the luncheon, of course, was whether the feds would retry the Liberty City group.
Liberty City mistrial
The Liberty City jury hung for a second time today. Judge Lenard will have a hearing next Wednesday to find out if the government will proceed a third time and if so, when that trial will be rescheduled. Lots of coverage from all the regulars.
I will re-post my questions from an earlier entry:
Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?
Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....
What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.
The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...
I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.
My prediction is that despite all of the above, the case will be tried a third time.
Finally, I feel for Judge Lenard. Can you imagine having to sit through the same lengthy trial 3 times. Shoot me now!
I will re-post my questions from an earlier entry:
Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?
Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....
What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.
The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...
I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.
My prediction is that despite all of the above, the case will be tried a third time.
Finally, I feel for Judge Lenard. Can you imagine having to sit through the same lengthy trial 3 times. Shoot me now!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Allen charged
The Liberty City jury sent another note that they were hung. Judge Lenard gave the dynamite charge, called the "Allen" charge. Here is the coverage of the Allen charge from the first trial.
Here is the text of the pattern Allen charge:
I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.
This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.
Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.
If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you.
Here is the text of the pattern Allen charge:
I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I have a few additional comments I would like for you to consider as you do so.
This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.
Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.
If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.
Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.
You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.
You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.
I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Come see Judge Martinez speak Wednesday
This Wednesday from noon to 1:30 at the Banker's Club, you should come see Judge Martinez speak -- it will be entertaining for sure. Cost is $35; RSVP to Lourdes Fernandez at Lourdes_Fernandez@flsd.uscourts.gov
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Liberty City thoughts
Let's assume this trial ends in a mistrial, like the trial before it did.
Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?
Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....
What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.
The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...
I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.
My prediction is that despite all of the above, if there is a hung jury, the case will be tried a third time.
Well then SDFLA readers, should the government retry the case for a third time?
Don't two mistrials demonstrate that the government has a proof problem? [edited to get rid of the double negatives referenced in the comments]. When do we reach that point? After 5 hung juries? 10? I think 2 is the number....
What about bond? If there is a mistrial, and the government decides to proceed a third time, certainly the remaining six should receive bond. Pretrial detention for defendants who haven't been convicted after two trials can't be right.
The court appointed lawyers must be sweating. One of these long CJA trials is enough to cripple a practice, but two back-to-back is almost impossible to come back from. If a third trial were to start up right away, I'm not sure how these lawyers could keep their private practices up and running...
I also feel terrible for the prosecutors trying the case. Their lives have been turned upside by the many months in back-to-back trials. And the decision to retry the case isn't theirs. The decision most likely isn't even being made here in Miami. It probably is being made by some lawyer in DC who won't have to endure 3 trials.
My prediction is that despite all of the above, if there is a hung jury, the case will be tried a third time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)