A commenter poses the question...

... regarding whether federal district courts should split up into criminal and civil divisions like our state courts do.

My gut tells me that this would be a good thing, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. What do you all think?

"We should start from scratch, because justice hasn't been achieved.'

That was AFPD Brian Stekloff for Guillermo Zarabozo in the Joe Cool case asking for a new trial on all counts. He continued: "Everyone in this courtroom knows how this jury reached this inconsistent and irrational verdict: They didn't understand the law." AUSA Karen Gilbert responded: "This scenario is not one where the court should set the verdict aside. We live with it. That's the verdict."

Judge Huck took the matter under consideration and set trial for January on the hung counts. Judge Huck did note that the jury's verdict "raises on eyebrow."

(via Sun-Sentinel, AP, Herald)

"If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."

Cheryl Stein has a nice op-ed in the Washington Times regarding Herring v. United States, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday. (Today is the first Monday in October -- Yippeee!) It raises the following question: whether courts must suppress evidence seized during an arrest made as a result of faulty information provided by another law enforcement agency.

Stein argues that the Supreme Court should not abandon the exclusionary rule. Here is her conclusion:

The contention that we should not allow a blunder by the police to confer a benefit on a criminal defendant would be reasonable only if most illegal searches are the result of good-faith mistakes. The sad fact is, however, that the vast majority of illegal searches are the result of deliberate misconduct by the police.

Political commentators and law professors who have never been in a courtroom except to defend their own traffic tickets may not understand that fact, but every practicing criminal defense lawyer knows it to be true. The rule provides the only legal brake on police misconduct. Without its sanctions, the Constitution's guarantee against unreasonable searches would be empty.

Finally, the critics fail to address one of the most important reasons the rule was adopted in the first place: to preserve the integrity of our court system. The Supreme Court explained its necessity more than 40 years ago: "If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." The rule "gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice." To forget that teaching is to abandon all that is best and brightest about our system of government.

Start your engines

Team Penske star Helio Castroneves has been charged with tax evasion in our District. (via the Miami Herald).

Here's a picture of him with Julianne Hough from Dancing with the Stars. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance tomorrow in magistrate court.

UPDATE -- Here's the AP article. And the indictment, which has been assigned to Judge Graham. Prosecutor: Matt Axelrod.

"I never believed for a minute that he was guilty of any of the charges, not even the ones we convicted him of"

That's one of the jurors in the Joe Cool case. Articles in the Sun-Sentinel and the Miami Herald detail how at least 3 jurors still believe Guillermo Zarabozo is not guilty of all counts, even the 4 they voted guilty on.

From the Sentinel:

Three jurors in the Joe Cool murder-at-sea trial said Wednesday they felt pressured to convict the 20-year-old defendant on gun charges even though they believed he did not kill anyone or know his companion planned to hijack the boat.One said she voted to convict, even though she felt the man on trial was innocent. Another seemed to believe he had cast a not-guilty vote, though guilty verdicts in federal court must be unanimous.After four days of heated deliberations, the 12 jurors voted Tuesday to convict Guillermo Zarabozo of supplying the firearm used to kill Capt. Jake Branam, 27; his wife, Kelley, 30; his half-brother, Scott Gamble, 36; and the first mate, Samuel Kairy, 27.In interviews with the Sun Sentinel, two women and one man from the panel said they were confused about the gun charges and badgered — even bullied — to vote guilty by fellow jurors.

From the Herald:

''I want to take back my vote to convict. I'm just sick over this whole thing. I think there has been a great miscarriage of justice, and I need to correct it,'' Venora Gray, 51, said.
Her disclosure came one day after she and 11 other jurors deadlocked on the major charges of first-degree murder, kidnapping and robbery in the fatal shootings of four Miami Beach charter boat crew members last year. But they all agreed to convict Zarabozo of four counts of using a firearm in a violent crime -- a charge she and the other panelists did not realize carried a life sentence, she said.
''No one in that jury room knew those were such serious charges,'' said Gray, a waitress from North Miami, who years ago served as a juror in another murder trial and convicted the defendant. ``There was no way I would have voted on that if I had known.''
The jurors' revelations could have a serious impact on an already challenged conviction. Seconds after Tuesday night's verdict, Zarabozo's defense team said the jurors could not convict on the charge of using a firearm to kill when they had not convicted Zarabozo of any of the murder charges.


Judge Huck is having a hearing on Monday to determine whether he should grant a new trial on the four counts on which the jury convicted. These interviews seem to support the defense view that the jurors were confused on the gun count.

As an aside, this bolsters my view that every jury should know the potential penalties of the crimes they are voting on. Judge Jack Weinstein in the Eastern District of New York recently wrote a 200+ page opinion holding that in some cases jurors should know the penalties.