Congrats to 30-year old Lindsay Harrison, a fifth year associate at Jenner & Block, for arguing before the Supreme Court last week -- her first appellate argument. A bunch of blogs have been covering the argument and Ms. Harrison, who clerked for Judge Gold and Judge Barkett. Here's a bit of an interview from AboveTheLaw:
ATL: First things first. What did you wear? There has been some controversy over how women oral advocates should dress when appearing before the Court.
LCH: I wore a black pantsuit. I was not about to wear a skirt, since they dispensed with that requirement and permitted women to wear pants a few years ago. If women don't take advantage of that opportunity, it sets a bad precedent. And I wore pearls -- my concession to formality.
ATL: You must be one of the youngest people ever to argue before the Court. Have you done any research to figure out where you fall?
LCH: I'm definitely not the youngest. The woman who argued Roe v. Wade, Sarah Weddington, was 26 at the time. Tom Goldstein was 29 when he argued his first case. I turned 30 on January 5.
The whole interview is a fun read.
UPDATE -- Ms. Harrison writes in:
There are actually a bunch of SDFL connections to the argument. An amicus brief was written by Adam Raviv (Marcus clerk) on behalf of FIAC, where my Barkett co-clerk Tania Galloni works. Cecily Baskir, another Barkett clerk, participated in one of my moots. And the argument was attended by both Adam Raviv and Deb Raviv, a King clerk from 03-04. All in all, a great showing for the SDFL.
I've also received a lot of really nice emails from folks in Miami, and it's been great to hear from the community, which I still feel very strongly a part of.
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
Monday, January 26, 2009
News and Notes
1. Liberty City 6, part 3, starts today. (via Herald)
3. John Pacenti at the DBR covers the Mutual Benefits lawyers who were indicted.
2. The Cuban Spies are petitioning for cert and have brought in super Supreme Court lawyer, Tom Goldstein (of ScotusBlog fame). They are also trying to work out a political resolution to the case. (via Herald)
3. John Pacenti at the DBR covers the Mutual Benefits lawyers who were indicted.
4. The Congressional delegation from South Florida is being sworn in at the new courthouse this morning. Here's a picture of Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from the proceedings.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Prison riot at Coleman High
Here's the article from CNN. Apparently, 8 inmates were injured, one by gunfire. More info as soon as it's available.
In other news, Vanessa Blum explains that the new U.S. Attorney will likely have different law enforcement priorities:
In the coming months, President Barack Obama will put his own stamp on crime-fighting efforts in South Florida by naming a new U.S. attorney to direct federal investigations and prosecutions.The new president's pick will head an elite office of lawyers and be responsible for translating the priorities of the Obama White House and the Department of Justice into local cases and convictions.The office, now supervised by Republican attorney Alex Acosta, operates largely out of public view, but wields great influence over law enforcement priorities and leads federal, state and local agencies in joint crime-fighting initiatives."A new U.S. attorney could set a different prosecutorial agenda," said attorney Justin Sayfie, who took part in recommending Acosta for the job. "It's an enormous, enormous power."
What do you think the feds should prioritize?
In other news, Vanessa Blum explains that the new U.S. Attorney will likely have different law enforcement priorities:
In the coming months, President Barack Obama will put his own stamp on crime-fighting efforts in South Florida by naming a new U.S. attorney to direct federal investigations and prosecutions.The new president's pick will head an elite office of lawyers and be responsible for translating the priorities of the Obama White House and the Department of Justice into local cases and convictions.The office, now supervised by Republican attorney Alex Acosta, operates largely out of public view, but wields great influence over law enforcement priorities and leads federal, state and local agencies in joint crime-fighting initiatives."A new U.S. attorney could set a different prosecutorial agenda," said attorney Justin Sayfie, who took part in recommending Acosta for the job. "It's an enormous, enormous power."
What do you think the feds should prioritize?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Plea agreements to be available again
We have discussed before (and criticized) the local rule taking plea agreements off-line and hiding them from the public. Here's what we said back then:
This is a silly policy, which is only in place in this District (as far as I know). Hopefully it will be changed soon (the local rules committee is studying it). If there are safety concerns for cooperating witnesses, then those concerns should be addressed in that particular case, but to have a blanket policy making it more difficult to get these documents.... Haven't we learned from the State scandal involving secret docs?
We also noted that Chief Judge Moreno was a judge who believed in courtrooms being open to the public and was generally against things being secret. He said back then in an interview with Julie Kay:
“I’m a very open person,” Moreno said. “My personal feeling is that if something is said in open court, it should be an open record.”
As for plea deals: "Moreno said the court will continue to study another issue that recently has generated controversy — whether plea agreements should be posted online."
Now that they have studied it, the en banc district court has issued administrative order 2009-2, rescinding the old rule making plea agreements secret and ordering:
that as of February 20, 2009, the Southern District of Florida's current policy of providing limited electronic access to plea agreements is rescinded. All plea agreements filed on or after February 20, 2009 will be public documents, with full remote access available to all members of the public and the bar, unless the Court has entered an Order in advance directing the sealing or otherwise restricting a plea agreement.
Well done Chief Judge Moreno and the rest of the court!
UPDATE -- Kathy Williams and AFPD Beatriz Bronis represented the defense on this issue. Congrats to them as well.
This is a silly policy, which is only in place in this District (as far as I know). Hopefully it will be changed soon (the local rules committee is studying it). If there are safety concerns for cooperating witnesses, then those concerns should be addressed in that particular case, but to have a blanket policy making it more difficult to get these documents.... Haven't we learned from the State scandal involving secret docs?
We also noted that Chief Judge Moreno was a judge who believed in courtrooms being open to the public and was generally against things being secret. He said back then in an interview with Julie Kay:
“I’m a very open person,” Moreno said. “My personal feeling is that if something is said in open court, it should be an open record.”
As for plea deals: "Moreno said the court will continue to study another issue that recently has generated controversy — whether plea agreements should be posted online."
Now that they have studied it, the en banc district court has issued administrative order 2009-2, rescinding the old rule making plea agreements secret and ordering:
that as of February 20, 2009, the Southern District of Florida's current policy of providing limited electronic access to plea agreements is rescinded. All plea agreements filed on or after February 20, 2009 will be public documents, with full remote access available to all members of the public and the bar, unless the Court has entered an Order in advance directing the sealing or otherwise restricting a plea agreement.
Well done Chief Judge Moreno and the rest of the court!
UPDATE -- Kathy Williams and AFPD Beatriz Bronis represented the defense on this issue. Congrats to them as well.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama stuff
Who was right on the oath flub? Most have sided with Obama, but here's Roberts' side of the story (via Althouse).
Is Obama keeping his Blackberry or some other device? (Hat tip: JK)
More of the same from Obama? Here's a funny Jon Stewart clip:
Is Obama keeping his Blackberry or some other device? (Hat tip: JK)
More of the same from Obama? Here's a funny Jon Stewart clip:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
This and that
Whew -- thankfully, I was able to see the inauguration before my Broward hearing this afternoon. Unbelievable! Even the Broward judge and prosecutor seemed to be in good moods today.
In that vein, we will post the positive article about Alex Acosta, by Julie Kay, not the negative one being discussed by commenters and another blog.
Here's the intro:
When he was named U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, one of the largest and busiest districts in the country with 284 assistant U.S. attorneys, in July 2005, the question on many local lawyers' minds was, "Who is Alex Acosta?"A former assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil rights division and staunch conservative who clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and served as president of the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School, Acosta, just 36, had little criminal trial experience and was unknown in Miami legal circles.But the Miami native has earned the respect of many in the South Florida legal community for his hard line on health care fraud, his prosecution of a whopping 13 public officials for corruption — including seven Palm Beach County commissioners and four Hollywood police officers — and his open-door policy with defense lawyers, agents, journalists and members of the community.As a Democratic administration prepares to take office — and he prepares his exit strategy — Acosta, now 40, talked to The National Law Journal about his accomplishments during the last 3 1/2 years, what he has learned on the job and what the future holds.
Some of the questions Julie Kay posed:
NLJ: You've been U.S. attorney of one of the largest, busiest and most prominent districts in the country since 2005. What have been your proudest accomplishments and biggest disappointments?
AA: The job of U.S. attorney is the best job that any attorney can have. The U.S. attorney has the ability to have a direct impact on his or her district. Some of the issues I've chosen to focus on are public corruption, healthcare fraud and more recently mortgage fraud. I believe I have left a lasting impact not only on South Florida but on the issues themselves.Public corruption is of the utmost importance. The fact that the largest law enforcement agency in the state has changed the way business has been done in the region is the most important legacy I'm leaving. Health care fraud is not something I fully understood and was disgusted by when I got here. We have now prosecuted $1.5 billion in health care fraud. This is not victimless crime. That is incredibly significant. To have that kind of impact is gratifying.As far as frustrations, public corruption cases are very important and I'm proud of the fact that we've done them right. In each of the cases, we've brought the charges with overwhelming evidence that resulted in guilty pleas of the officials. This is very important because when a public official gets up and says, "I did this, I broke the law," it sends a message, more than a long, protracted litigation. The flip side of this is [that] public corruption cases take time, and what is most frustrating is seeing and knowing the evidence we have but waiting until our cases are ready. Some people feel these cases are put together in weeks or months, and you can't do that, you have to be thorough. That is frustrating to the community — the fact that you want things to move quickly and they don't. I said in my press conference in Palm Beach, I wish I could say this is the final prosecution, but I fear it is not. There are matters that require additional work.
***
NLJ: Human rights groups like the Center for Justice and Accountability and Human Rights Watch have issued statements commending federal prosecutors for bringing the case. Have you gotten any other reaction and do you think this case will set a precedent?
AA: Human rights groups support it. We've also gotten reaction from victims in Liberia. They never thought that Chuckie Taylor Jr. could be brought to justice. They thought he was above reproach. They realize now that in fact these types of cases can be brought. I think it will set a precedent around the country and other cases will be brought.
NLJ: That was a successful case. A case that has not been as successful has the Liberty Seven/Liberty Six case. That case — in which seven Miami men were charged with scheming to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago — has been criticized by the press and other groups as far-reaching: that these men were Al Queda wannabes and didn't have the ability to pull anything off. One man was dismissed at trial and the rest were subject to hung juries twice.You're retrying the case for the third time, starting this month. Why, and do you regret bringing this case?
AA: Every case we have brought has been based on the evidence, and as prosecutors we have to review the evidence and if we believe it's worth bringing, we do so. It's a pending trial so I can't comment. There have been matters that have hung twice and been retried in this office. It does happen. But as I've said before, this will be the third and final time.
Wow, no more retrials. Interesting. I think two mistrials are enough and the case shouldn't be tried a third time. But it is noteworthy that he is saying in advance that it won't be tried again. Jury selection starts this week.... Stay tuned.
In that vein, we will post the positive article about Alex Acosta, by Julie Kay, not the negative one being discussed by commenters and another blog.
Here's the intro:
When he was named U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, one of the largest and busiest districts in the country with 284 assistant U.S. attorneys, in July 2005, the question on many local lawyers' minds was, "Who is Alex Acosta?"A former assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's civil rights division and staunch conservative who clerked for Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and served as president of the Federalist Society at Harvard Law School, Acosta, just 36, had little criminal trial experience and was unknown in Miami legal circles.But the Miami native has earned the respect of many in the South Florida legal community for his hard line on health care fraud, his prosecution of a whopping 13 public officials for corruption — including seven Palm Beach County commissioners and four Hollywood police officers — and his open-door policy with defense lawyers, agents, journalists and members of the community.As a Democratic administration prepares to take office — and he prepares his exit strategy — Acosta, now 40, talked to The National Law Journal about his accomplishments during the last 3 1/2 years, what he has learned on the job and what the future holds.
Some of the questions Julie Kay posed:
NLJ: You've been U.S. attorney of one of the largest, busiest and most prominent districts in the country since 2005. What have been your proudest accomplishments and biggest disappointments?
AA: The job of U.S. attorney is the best job that any attorney can have. The U.S. attorney has the ability to have a direct impact on his or her district. Some of the issues I've chosen to focus on are public corruption, healthcare fraud and more recently mortgage fraud. I believe I have left a lasting impact not only on South Florida but on the issues themselves.Public corruption is of the utmost importance. The fact that the largest law enforcement agency in the state has changed the way business has been done in the region is the most important legacy I'm leaving. Health care fraud is not something I fully understood and was disgusted by when I got here. We have now prosecuted $1.5 billion in health care fraud. This is not victimless crime. That is incredibly significant. To have that kind of impact is gratifying.As far as frustrations, public corruption cases are very important and I'm proud of the fact that we've done them right. In each of the cases, we've brought the charges with overwhelming evidence that resulted in guilty pleas of the officials. This is very important because when a public official gets up and says, "I did this, I broke the law," it sends a message, more than a long, protracted litigation. The flip side of this is [that] public corruption cases take time, and what is most frustrating is seeing and knowing the evidence we have but waiting until our cases are ready. Some people feel these cases are put together in weeks or months, and you can't do that, you have to be thorough. That is frustrating to the community — the fact that you want things to move quickly and they don't. I said in my press conference in Palm Beach, I wish I could say this is the final prosecution, but I fear it is not. There are matters that require additional work.
***
NLJ: Human rights groups like the Center for Justice and Accountability and Human Rights Watch have issued statements commending federal prosecutors for bringing the case. Have you gotten any other reaction and do you think this case will set a precedent?
AA: Human rights groups support it. We've also gotten reaction from victims in Liberia. They never thought that Chuckie Taylor Jr. could be brought to justice. They thought he was above reproach. They realize now that in fact these types of cases can be brought. I think it will set a precedent around the country and other cases will be brought.
NLJ: That was a successful case. A case that has not been as successful has the Liberty Seven/Liberty Six case. That case — in which seven Miami men were charged with scheming to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago — has been criticized by the press and other groups as far-reaching: that these men were Al Queda wannabes and didn't have the ability to pull anything off. One man was dismissed at trial and the rest were subject to hung juries twice.You're retrying the case for the third time, starting this month. Why, and do you regret bringing this case?
AA: Every case we have brought has been based on the evidence, and as prosecutors we have to review the evidence and if we believe it's worth bringing, we do so. It's a pending trial so I can't comment. There have been matters that have hung twice and been retried in this office. It does happen. But as I've said before, this will be the third and final time.
Wow, no more retrials. Interesting. I think two mistrials are enough and the case shouldn't be tried a third time. But it is noteworthy that he is saying in advance that it won't be tried again. Jury selection starts this week.... Stay tuned.
Monday, January 19, 2009
A New Hope
I am so bummed... Instead of watching the inauguration tomorrow, I will be stuck in state court in Broward. I kid you not. Shouldn't courts be closed tomorrow? Thank goodness for TiVo.
A big shout out to all the FOB (friends of blog) who are in DC. Please send pics and we will post them.
It's a very exciting time, no matter what political party you belong to. Some interesting questions:
1. Who will President Obama appoint to be the next U.S. Attorney? When will that happen? Any chance that it is Alex Acosta?
2. Who will President Obama appoint to fill the first open Southern District judgeship?
3. Who will sit on the federal JNC to help in these selections?
And finally:
4. Will Rumpole reveal himself?
Friday, January 16, 2009
"My innocent client is being dragged along for the ride."
That's Joel Hirschhorn on the Mutual Benefits case after two judges have recused and the U.S. Attorney and his chief have recused from the case. What is going on?
Here's Vanessa Blum's article, which is extremely interesting. The case is now assigned to Judge Jordan and Eric Bustillo is the AUSA who signed off on the indictment. From the intro:
The biggest financial fraud case in Broward County history is proving too hot to handle for several senior federal law enforcement officials and judges, who have removed themselves from having anything to do with it.Federal prosecutors announced new charges this month in the long-running investigation of Mutual Benefits Corp.--a defunct Fort Lauderdale investment firm whose managers are accused of operating a $1-billion Ponzi scheme.This week, two federal judges assigned to hear the case stepped aside in quick succession with no explanation, according to public court records.The back-to-back judicial recusals, unparalleled in recent memory, followed an unusual decision by the two highest-ranking lawyers in the local U.S. Attorney's Office to have no further involvement in matters related to Mutual Benefits.
Judges and prosecutors generally recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interest, for instance a personal relationship with someone involved or a financial stake in the litigation.Because of secrecy surrounding the recusals, it is not clear whether the Justice Department officials and federal judges have the same conflict.
Quick question -- should judges and prosecutors have to disclose why they recuse from a case?
Here's Vanessa Blum's article, which is extremely interesting. The case is now assigned to Judge Jordan and Eric Bustillo is the AUSA who signed off on the indictment. From the intro:
The biggest financial fraud case in Broward County history is proving too hot to handle for several senior federal law enforcement officials and judges, who have removed themselves from having anything to do with it.Federal prosecutors announced new charges this month in the long-running investigation of Mutual Benefits Corp.--a defunct Fort Lauderdale investment firm whose managers are accused of operating a $1-billion Ponzi scheme.This week, two federal judges assigned to hear the case stepped aside in quick succession with no explanation, according to public court records.The back-to-back judicial recusals, unparalleled in recent memory, followed an unusual decision by the two highest-ranking lawyers in the local U.S. Attorney's Office to have no further involvement in matters related to Mutual Benefits.
Judges and prosecutors generally recuse themselves when they have conflicts of interest, for instance a personal relationship with someone involved or a financial stake in the litigation.Because of secrecy surrounding the recusals, it is not clear whether the Justice Department officials and federal judges have the same conflict.
Quick question -- should judges and prosecutors have to disclose why they recuse from a case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)