1. Are there particles really moving faster than the speed of light? If so, this is the biggest news of our lifetime.
If not, there is still legal news:
2. Is this an effective letter to a sentencing judge by C. Coke?
3. The 11th Circuit says Florida deep-sea explorers must return 17 tons of silver coins from a sunken ship to Spain.
4. Former U.S. Attorney in DC calls federal sentencing "draconian."
5. Watch out for the falling satellite this weekend.
6. FIU posted the highest bar passage rate.
7. Yesterday, the Hispanic Bar honored Judge Jose Gonzalez at the federal courthouse. I heard that Judge Gonzalez gave a beautiful speech.
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
Friday, September 23, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
One judge to another during oral argument: "Shut up."
Remember the tiff between Judges Sparks and Jones over the Kindergarten email sent to lawyers. Well, Judge Jones is in the news again over judicial demeanor and ethics. Above The Law has the whole story and it's a doozy. This time, Judge Jones goes at it with Judge Dennis during an oral argument (here's the recording). Here's the transcript, prepared by ABT:
Yikes.
MR. TURNER: I think the amount of drugs in that truck supports the intent to distribute. And the jury….
JUDGE DENNIS: Well, we’ve said over and over that the amount…. this court, no court has said that you can infer….
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Judge Dennis….
JUDGE DENNIS: … just on the basis of the amount of drugs …
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Judge Dennis!
JUDGE DENNIS: Can I, can I, can I ask a question?
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: You have monopolized, uh, uh, seven minutes….
JUDGE DENNIS: Well, I’m way behind on asking questions in this court. I have been quiet a lot of times, and I am involved in this case….
CHIEF JUDGE JONES slams her hand down on the table (loudly), stands halfway up out of her chair, and points toward the door.
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: Would you like to leave?
JUDGE DENNIS: Pardon? What did you say?
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: I want you to shut up long enough for me to suggest that perhaps….
JUDGE DENNIS: Don’t tell me to shut up….
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: … you should give some other judge a chance to ask a question …
JUDGE DENNIS: Listen, I have been in this courtroom many times and gotten closed out and not able to ask a question. I don’t think I’m being overbearing….
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: You’ve been asking questions for the entire seven minutes….
JUDGE DENNIS: Well, I happen to be through. I have no more questions.
CHIEF JUDGE JONES: I just want to offer any other judge an opportunity to ask a question. Some may support your position. If nobody else chooses to ask a question, then please go forward.
RANDOM FEMALE JUDGE WHO IS NOT EDITH JONES (timidly): I would like to ask a question about the necessity for a Sears instruction….
Yikes.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Summary
Lots of news the last few days...
-- New Federal Judges being vetted (Thornton & Rosenbaum)
-- Huge sentences for Medicare fraudsters
-- Judge Jordan's confirmation hearing was today
-- Hung jury after a long mortgage fraud trial (happy for Michael Walsh after how the case began for him)
-- Padilla case decided 2-1
Here's a little more:
-- Pacenti reports on a case in which Nevin Shapiro testified but the defense was not made aware of the pending investigation against him;
-- New Federal Judges being vetted (Thornton & Rosenbaum)
-- Huge sentences for Medicare fraudsters
-- Judge Jordan's confirmation hearing was today
-- Hung jury after a long mortgage fraud trial (happy for Michael Walsh after how the case began for him)
-- Padilla case decided 2-1
Here's a little more:
-- Pacenti reports on a case in which Nevin Shapiro testified but the defense was not made aware of the pending investigation against him;
-- The NY Times covers the question of whether jurors should be required to sign a pledge under penalties of perjury that they won't search the internet about the case while sitting as jurors, while the NY Post asks whether a prosecutor can work as a dominatrix.
-- I know the feds like to keep lawyers at the podium, but this may be a bit too far -- a judge has given authority to marshals to in their discretion SHOCK a lawyer representing himself if he strays from the podium. An anklet has been installed that will administer the shock. Seriously.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Mistrial in 4 month long mortgage fraud trial
This was trial #2 in the cop mortgage fraud trial, where trial #1 resulted in 4 of the 6 defendants being acquitted. For the second group of defendants, the jury hung, and I'm told it was 10-2 for acquittal. I feel for Judge Cohn, the defendants, their lawyers, and the prosecutors. This was an excruciatingly long trial. Is the government going to retry these defendants? As I've said before, I don't think retrials in cases like these are appropriate:
I'm not sure why a prosecutor should be able to retry a case after he couldn't convince a jury to convict. Isn't that reasonable doubt? To force someone to defend against two federal trials is impossible in every way -- financially and emotionally. The government had its shot in what was a controversial prosecution. Now time to go after a real criminal.
11th Circuit decides Padilla case 2-1
Here is the opinion .
Judge Dubina writes the majority, which Judge Pryor joins, affirming the conviction and reversing Jose Padilla's 17 year sentence as too low. Judge Barkett dissents on both the conviction and sentencing holdings. In total, there are 120 pages of opinions. This case seems destined for Supreme Court review.
More to follow...
Judge Dubina writes the majority, which Judge Pryor joins, affirming the conviction and reversing Jose Padilla's 17 year sentence as too low. Judge Barkett dissents on both the conviction and sentencing holdings. In total, there are 120 pages of opinions. This case seems destined for Supreme Court review.
More to follow...
Friday, September 16, 2011
BREAKING -- Rumors regarding district judge openings UPDATE -- Rumors confirmed!
Well, this wouldn't be printed if it were a newspaper or a legitimate publication, but because this is a blog, and I trust my sources, I am going to post the rumor that is being whispered about around town. Again, this isn't confirmed, but if it's being discussed at La Loggia, it can be discussed here too.
As we all know, 4 names were sent up by the JNC to fill Judge Gold's seat. Apparently, the White House is vetting two of those names, John Thornton and Robin Rosenbaum -- one to fill Judge Gold's seat and one to fill Judge Jordan's seat (see below; his confirmation hearing is next week).
If the rumor is true, congrats to Judges Thornton and Rosenbaum!
If anyone out there can confirm or refute this rumor, please email me and it will remain anonymous. Thanks.
UPDATED -- It's confirmed. Congratulations to Judge Thornton and Judge Rosenbaum! Here's hoping that the President and Senate move quickly.
As we all know, 4 names were sent up by the JNC to fill Judge Gold's seat. Apparently, the White House is vetting two of those names, John Thornton and Robin Rosenbaum -- one to fill Judge Gold's seat and one to fill Judge Jordan's seat (see below; his confirmation hearing is next week).
If the rumor is true, congrats to Judges Thornton and Rosenbaum!
If anyone out there can confirm or refute this rumor, please email me and it will remain anonymous. Thanks.
UPDATED -- It's confirmed. Congratulations to Judge Thornton and Judge Rosenbaum! Here's hoping that the President and Senate move quickly.
Judge Jordan's confirmation hearing next week
It's set for Tuesday, September 20. That was quick -- Well done to the adminsitration for moving this nomination forward. After his hearing, then he will get written questions from the committee and then there will be a vote. Looks like Judge Jordan may be on the 11th by sometime in November.
Now we need to get Bob Scola confirmed. He is #19 on the list of district judges waiting confirmation, so if they do a few per week, we are looking at October for Judge Scola.
Things are starting to move, which is nice.
Big shout out to Dore Louis for his posting over the past two days. Good stuff.
Now we need to get Bob Scola confirmed. He is #19 on the list of district judges waiting confirmation, so if they do a few per week, we are looking at October for Judge Scola.
Things are starting to move, which is nice.
Big shout out to Dore Louis for his posting over the past two days. Good stuff.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Great Ruling on Strange Issue
By guest blogger, Dore Louis
Judge Cooke has just issued an Order in an interesting matter.
In July of this year, Governor Scott signed into law Fla. Stat. § 790.338, which contained a few odd provisions. Basically, the statute provided a basis to impose sanctions upon a doctor or health care provider who asks a patient about gun ownership or otherwise discriminates against a patient because of gun ownership.
"According to the State’s legislative findings, the State passed the law in reaction to an incident in Ocala, Florida, where a physician advised the mother of a minor patient that she had thirty days to find a new pediatrician after the mother refused to answer questions about firearms in her home."
Governor Scott is our Tea Party Governor. Big free market ideas...'let the market sort it out, government shouldn't be telling us what to do, etc.'; so it seems odd to me that he would sign into law a regulation that mandates a physician treat a patient who that physician does not want to treat because he/she owns a gun. Free market theory would instruct that if there are enough gun owners in the marketplace, the physician will either change his/her ways or go out of business.
Turns out the reason the pediatrician was doing what he/she did, was because the American Academy of Pediatrics counsels physicians to give guidance on gun safety. We don't want kids like this walking around, no matter how cute they are.
But why should politics make sense? Thankfully, Judge Cooke is able, through her thoughtful order, to make sense of subjects I was not particularly good at in Law School - First Amendment and Preliminary Injunction Law. What are those standards?
"At issue in this litigation is a law directed at maintaining patients’ privacy rights regarding firearm ownership within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. In effect, however, the law curtails practitioners’ ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients, under certain circumstances. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act thus implicates practitioners’ First Amendment rights of free speech. The Act also implicates patients’ freedom to receive information about firearm safety, which the First Amendment protects."
...
"The State has attempted to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case. Despite the State’s insistence that the right to “keep arms” is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights. The right to keep arms refers to the right to “retain,” “to have in custody,” and “to hold” weapons, including firearms."
...
"I will not speak to the wisdom of the legislation now before me. Questions of a law’s constitutionality do not create “a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). The First Amendment, however, “was not designed to facilitate legislation,” whether wise or not. FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 503 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring). Based on the foregoing, I find that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional challenge."
...
"Each of the factors for a preliminary injunction weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. For that reason, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The State is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6). The State is also preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(8), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1) and (2) constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The State is further preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 456.072(1)(mm), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6) shall constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions specified under § 456.072(2) may be taken."
I am a bit saddened that there were no Yosemite Sam references. Here is the Order.
Wollschlaeger Order
Judge Cooke has just issued an Order in an interesting matter.
In July of this year, Governor Scott signed into law Fla. Stat. § 790.338, which contained a few odd provisions. Basically, the statute provided a basis to impose sanctions upon a doctor or health care provider who asks a patient about gun ownership or otherwise discriminates against a patient because of gun ownership.
"According to the State’s legislative findings, the State passed the law in reaction to an incident in Ocala, Florida, where a physician advised the mother of a minor patient that she had thirty days to find a new pediatrician after the mother refused to answer questions about firearms in her home."
Governor Scott is our Tea Party Governor. Big free market ideas...'let the market sort it out, government shouldn't be telling us what to do, etc.'; so it seems odd to me that he would sign into law a regulation that mandates a physician treat a patient who that physician does not want to treat because he/she owns a gun. Free market theory would instruct that if there are enough gun owners in the marketplace, the physician will either change his/her ways or go out of business.
Turns out the reason the pediatrician was doing what he/she did, was because the American Academy of Pediatrics counsels physicians to give guidance on gun safety. We don't want kids like this walking around, no matter how cute they are.
But why should politics make sense? Thankfully, Judge Cooke is able, through her thoughtful order, to make sense of subjects I was not particularly good at in Law School - First Amendment and Preliminary Injunction Law. What are those standards?
"At issue in this litigation is a law directed at maintaining patients’ privacy rights regarding firearm ownership within the context of the doctor-patient relationship. In effect, however, the law curtails practitioners’ ability to inquire about whether patients own firearms and burdens their ability to deliver a firearm safety message to patients, under certain circumstances. The Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act thus implicates practitioners’ First Amendment rights of free speech. The Act also implicates patients’ freedom to receive information about firearm safety, which the First Amendment protects."
...
"The State has attempted to inveigle this Court to cast this matter as a Second Amendment case. Despite the State’s insistence that the right to “keep arms” is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights. The right to keep arms refers to the right to “retain,” “to have in custody,” and “to hold” weapons, including firearms."
...
"I will not speak to the wisdom of the legislation now before me. Questions of a law’s constitutionality do not create “a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993). The First Amendment, however, “was not designed to facilitate legislation,” whether wise or not. FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449, 503 (2007) (Scalia, J., concurring). Based on the foregoing, I find that Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their constitutional challenge."
...
"Each of the factors for a preliminary injunction weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. For that reason, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. The State is preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6). The State is also preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 790.338(8), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1) and (2) constitute grounds for disciplinary action. The State is further preliminarily enjoined from enforcing § 456.072(1)(mm), to the extent that it provides that violations of § 790.338(1), (2), (5), and (6) shall constitute grounds for which disciplinary actions specified under § 456.072(2) may be taken."
I am a bit saddened that there were no Yosemite Sam references. Here is the Order.
Wollschlaeger Order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)