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.

Go Crimson! Go Canes!

The first weekend of the tourney is the best weekend in sports.

Your moment of zen

John Pacenti's federal court report.

Font issues

Not sure what happened with yesterday's post.  Sorry about that. 

This is Rumpole's territory, but big ups to Phil Reizenstein for hanging a jury 8-4 for not guilty with a death qualified jury.  That doesn't happen every day of the week.  Dave Ovalle from the Herald has the details on some really great lawyering.  

Justice Ginsburg has a trainer.  The WP Post covers this neat story about how she can now do 20 pushups:

Ginsburg and Johnson are an unlikely pair, the world-class lawyer and her physical powerhouse of a trainer. He stands an inch shy of 6 feet, weighs 206 pounds and can pump out 84 push-ups in two minutes. She’s just over 5 feet and just over 100 pounds — and she has passed her own milestone on the green mat.
“When I started, I looked like a survivor of Auschwitz,” Ginsburg said in an interview. “Now I’m up to 20 push-ups.”
And those are old-fashioned, knees-off-the-ground push-ups, her trainer proudly points out.
Discretion is a big part of the unwritten job description for people like Johnson, people who cut hair, cook meals, tailor suits — and keep secrets for those in power. Johnson often knows when his well-known clients are tired or sick — or why they’ve had a rough day on the bench.

The Tourney starts tomorrow, so expect slow blogging for a few days.  Go Canes.

Justice Scalia during oral argument on Arizona voting law: "No problemo"

Yes, Justice Scalia lapsed into Spanglish during oral argument on the question of whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections:

JUSTICE SCALIA: You think "may require

only" means shall require only? Is that -- is that your

submission? "May require only" means shall require

only?

MR. SRINIVASAN: It "may require only" in

effect means shall require information that's necessary,

but may only require that information. I think the

statute would make very little sense if the EAC

discharged its statutory responsibility by having a

Federal form that required nothing other than the name.

That wouldn't be within anybody's conceivable conception

of a rational objective of Congress that would enable

the EAC to -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: It would not be a problem

if the State could require it. It would not be a

problem. When -- when the commission fails to do what

enables the State to assess qualifications, the State'll

do it. No problemo.

 The NY Times says that oral argument seemed split along ideological lines:

 The Supreme Court appeared divided along familiar lines on Monday as it heard arguments over whether Arizona can require proof of citizenship from people seeking to register to vote in federal elections.

Several of the court’s more liberal justices sounded doubtful about a state law that imposes requirements beyond those called for by a federal law.

“Many people don’t have the documents that Arizona requires,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.

The Arizona law, enacted in 2004 by a ballot initiative, requires prospective voters to prove that they are citizens by submitting copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

The question for the justices was whether that state law conflicted with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing that they are citizens under penalty of perjury.

Several members of the court’s conservative wing indicated that the state was free to impose additional requirements to make sure only citizens vote.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the federal form was inadequate. “So it’s under oath,” he said. “Big deal. If you’re willing to violate the voting laws, I suppose you’re willing to violate the perjury laws.”

“Under oath,” he added, “is not proof at all. It’s just a statement.”

Patricia A. Millett, a lawyer for several groups challenging the Arizona law, responded that “statements under oath in criminal cases are proof beyond a reasonable doubt” sufficient to lead to the death penalty.

She added that tens of thousands of people had been rejected from the registration rolls because of the Arizona law, though there was no evidence that they were not citizens.

Meantime, Justice Kagan was speaking on Gideon and said that indigent defendants weren't entitled to Cadillac lawyers, just Ford Tauruses (via BLT):

Indigent defendants aren't entitled to "the best defense money can buy," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said on Friday at a U.S. Justice Department event marking the 50th anniversary of the high court's landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision, which guaranteed that people accused of crimes have the right to a lawyer even if they can't pay.
Speaking before a standing-room only crowd in DOJ's Great Hall with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and former Vice President Walter Mondale, Kagan said the provision of a "Cadillac" lawyer isn't a right for poor defendants. But they should at least have a "Ford Taurus" defense, complete with a lawyer who has the skills, resources and competence necessary to thoroughly advise a client.
"We don't have the resources to make [a Cadillac defense] happen," Kagan said. "And I'm not sure if we did have the resources that that's exactly what we should want."
But even a Taurus defense is hard to come by, she said. In the five decades since the March 18, 1963, decision, states have faced challenges adhering to the high court's unanimous decision that found that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries." If a person facing a felony charge is too poor to hire a lawyer, the court ruled, the government is obligated to provide one for free. Subsequent decisions expanded the right to juvenile proceedings and certain misdemeanors.

Cert granted in United States v. Kaley

This is Howard Srebnick and Richard Strafer's case dealing with whether a defendant is entitled to a pretrial hearing to challenge forfeiture.  SCOTUSBlog has this quick summary:

 The Court also granted review on whether an individual faced with the forfeiture of property that may be the proceeds of a crime has a right to a pre-trial hearing to challenge the basis for possible forfeiture.  The Justice Department agreed that the Court should address this issue because of a division among lower courts on it; the case is Kaley, et al. v. U.S. (12-464).

Here's the 11th Circuit opinion, which Judge Marcus wrote.  Judge Edmondson concurred but said he would have decided the case differently.  Judge Marra handled the case at the trial level.   There was a circuit split.

Wow---prosecutorial misconduct leads to reversal of death penalty conviction

The Ninth Circuit reversed a death row conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct.  The opinion, by Judge Kozinski, is here.  The Trial Insider blog summarizes the case this way:

Kozinski wrote, “This is a disturbing case. There’s no physical evidence linking Debra Milke to the crime, and she has maintained her innocence since the day she was arrested.”
The only evidence linking her to the murder of her son by two men she asked to take him to see Santa Claus in 1990 was the word of Detective Armando Saldate, Jr., “a police officer with a long history of misconduct that includes lying under oath as well as accepting sexual favors in exchange for leniency and lying about it.”
Young Christopher had asked his mother to let him see Santa Claus at the mall and she agreed to let him go with her roommate James Styers. Styers picked up a friend, Roger Scott, and instead of the mall, drove the boy to a ravine outside town where they shot him in the head. They drove to the mall and reported Christopher missing. The motive was allegedly a plot by Styers and Scott to collect social security benefits and insurance as a result of the boy’s death, according to the court.
Police began to suspect the two men almost immediately. Saldate was one of the officers questioning the two men. Scott led the officers to Christopher’s body. Scott purportedly said at some point that Milke was involved, but neither man would testify against her and the statement was excluded as hearsay at her trial.
But Saldate seized on the statement and went to question Milke. She was taken to a small room at Pinal County jail where Saldate abruptly told the 25-year-old woman her son was dead. He said he didn’t “buy” her sobbing because she had no tears, according to the opinion.
He continued to question her, without tape recording the conversation as instructed. Saldate claims Milke opened up to him within 30 minutes, waived her Miranda rights, and confessed to a murder conspiracy with the two men.
She has consistently denied involvement in the murder and said she had asked for a lawyer but was ignored. Saldate even testified he destroyed his interview notes after writing his official report. In the end, the jury believed Saldate and convicted Milke. What jurors didn’t know was Saldate’s “long history of lying under oath and other misconduct,” Kozinski said. “The state knew about this misconduct but didn’t disclose it,” despite the requirements of long-standing legal precedents. (Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. U.S.)

And here's Thomson Reuters:

The detective testified that Milke told him she had contemplated having an abortion while pregnant with Christopher and had complained to Styers about her son. The detective said she confessed to conspiring to the murder, although she protested her innocence and denied the claim.
In its ruling, the court said the state failed to disclose Saldate's substantial misconduct record, which included four court cases where judges tossed out confessions or indictments because he lied under oath.
The court said that, without the detective's testimony, the prosecution had no case against her, as there was no physical evidence linking her to the crime and neither of her supposed co-conspirators - Styers and Scott - would testify against her.
"The panel held that the state remained unconstitutionally silent instead of disclosing information about Det. Saldate's history of misconduct and accompanying court orders and disciplinary action," the ruling said.
"Some of the misconduct wasn't disclosed until the case came to federal court and, even today, some evidence relevant to Saldate's credibility hasn't been produced, perhaps because it's been destroyed."
The appeals court ordered the state to provide Milke's counsel with the detective's personnel records. The district court was then ordered to release Milke, who is one of three women listed on Arizona's death row, unless the state should decide to retry her.

Judge Dube retires

Magistrate Judge Dube has been part of the court family for a long long time.  Today he retired, and the court had a nice luncheon for him.  In classic Dube fashion, he started off his remarks: "I am a humble man, but I agree with all the nice things you said about me."  Good stuff. 

When I was a clerk back in 1997, Judge Dube made a point of introducing himself to the new clerks and offering any help we needed in figuring out how the court worked.  He also helped us all get involved in the Federal Bar Association, a group he ran for over 25 years.

His longtime clerk Lourdes Fernandez gave some really nice heartfelt remarks about her 10 years with Judge Dube.

He's a good man. 

Here's a picture of him from the luncheon:

Federal Bar Luncheon on trial advocacy

Yesterday the Federal Bar Association had its monthly luncheon at the Banker's Club on trial advocacy.  On the panel:  Judges Altonaga, Martinez & Scola.  It's always interesting to hear the judges' take on what works in trials.  I liked Judge Scola's comment that there is a big difference between being a litigator and a trial lawyer...

While the talk on trials was going on, a case in West Palm Beach that was set to start ended up resolving by way of misdemeanor.  The plea, where the felony counts were dropped, was worked out during the middle of a Kastigar hearing.  Jeffrey Neiman, Jack Goldberger, Bruce Reinhart, and Theresa Van Vliet were the defense lawyers.  Jon Burstein covers the case involving anti-aging clinics here. 

11th Circuit has oral argument only 11% of the time

That's second fewest in the country.  Seems way too low.  Only the Fourth Circuit is worse at 10.5%.  The Second Circuit, which has about the same number of cases, has oral argument 23% of the time. 

A few weeks back Rumpole asked whether his readers would rather be a state Supreme Court Justice or a federal district judge.  Well, a Montana Supreme Court Justice has just been nominated to the district court.  So, at least for him, the answer is the feds.

And finally, more sequestration fall out for the judiciary.  BLT covers it:

The AO identified a slew of other problems posed by sequestration: fewer probation officers to supervise ex-offenders; a 20 percent cut in funding for drug testing and mental health treatment; case processing backlogs because of fewer clerk's office staff; a 30 percent cut in funding for court security systems; delays in payments to court-appointed criminal defense lawyers; and "deep cuts" to information technology programs.
"Reductions of this magnitude strike at the heart of our entire system of justice and spread throughout the country," Gibbons said. "The longer the sequestration stays in place, the more severe will be its impact on the courts and those who use them."

"Basically, every Friday the Federal Public Defender's Office will be closed."

That's FPD Michael Caruso describing one of the effects of the sequester on his office.  John Pacenti covers the issue in today's DBR:

Now, the sequester's mandatory budget cuts are about to hit home, slowing many facets of the federal justice system in South Florida.
Criminal sentencing hearings in federal court will be suspended Fridays — a favorite day for many judges. This is a result of unpaid furloughs hitting prosecutors, public defenders and federal marshals over the next six months.
Each Federal Public Defender employee in the Southern District of Florida must take 22 unpaid days between April 1 and the end of the government's fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. It translates into almost one day each week.
***
"The real cost is to the employees of the office," Caruso said. "We have single moms and we have parents who are saving for their kids' college, and we have people who need to pay their mortgage. Every employee is taking a 20 percent pay cut."
Sources told the Daily Business Review that each prosecutor in the Southern District will take 14 furlough days, but the office did not confirm that figure.
U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer's office referred all questions about budget cuts to the office of Attorney General Eric Holder in Washington.
The Justice Department released a letter from Holder to U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, D-Maryland, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, outlining sequester budget cuts for prosecutors, civil attorneys, the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review.
The Marshals Service is facing furloughs of up to 13 days; employees at the Bureau of Prisons will face on average 12 day.

 

 Picture of Federal Defender Michael Caruso by DBR J. Albert Diaz

NY Times covers airport case

OK, so it was a little more involved than that because the characters were a world-renowned physicist and a super model.  The physicist chatted with the model online and really wanted to meet her in person.  All he had to do was carry one of her bags....  You know where this is going:

Frampton didn’t plan on a long trip. He needed to be back to teach. So he left his car at the airport. Soon, he hoped, he’d be returning with Milani on his arm. The first thing that went wrong was that the e-ticket Milani sent Frampton for the Toronto-Santiago leg of his journey turned out to be invalid, leaving him stranded in the Toronto airport for a full day. Frampton finally arrived in La Paz four days after he set out. He hoped to meet Milani the next morning, but by then she had been called away to another photo shoot in Brussels. She promised to send him a ticket to join her there, so Frampton, who had checked into the Eva Palace Hotel, worked on a physics paper while he waited for it to arrive. He and Milani kept in regular contact. A ticket to Buenos Aires eventually came, with the promise that another ticket to Brussels was on the way. All Milani asked was that Frampton do her a favor: bring her a bag that she had left in La Paz.

While in Bolivia, Frampton corresponded with an old friend, John Dixon, a physicist and lawyer who lives in Ontario. When Frampton explained what he was up to, Dixon became alarmed. His warnings to Frampton were unequivocal, Dixon told me not long ago, still clearly upset: “I said: ‘Well, inside that suitcase sewn into the lining will be cocaine. You’re in big trouble.’ Paul said, ‘I’ll be careful, I’ll make sure there isn’t cocaine in there and if there is, I’ll ask them to remove it.’ I thought they were probably going to kidnap him and torture him to get his money. I didn’t know he didn’t have money. I said, ‘Well, you’re going to be killed, Paul, so whom should I contact when you disappear?’ And he said, ‘You can contact my brother and my former wife.’ ” Frampton later told me that he shrugged off Dixon’s warnings about drugs as melodramatic, adding that he rarely pays attention to the opinions of others.

On the evening of Jan. 20, nine days after he arrived in Bolivia, a man Frampton describes as Hispanic but whom he didn’t get a good look at handed him a bag out on the dark street in front of his hotel. Frampton was expecting to be given an Hermès or a Louis Vuitton, but the bag was an utterly commonplace black cloth suitcase with wheels. Once he was back in his room, he opened it. It was empty. He wrote to Milani, asking why this particular suitcase was so important. She told him it had “sentimental value.” The next morning, he filled it with his dirty laundry and headed to the airport.

Frampton flew from La Paz to Buenos Aires, crossing the border without incident. He says that he spent the next 40 hours in Ezeiza airport, without sleeping, mainly “doing physics” and checking his e-mail regularly in hopes that an e-ticket to Brussels would arrive. But by the time the ticket materialized, Frampton had gotten a friend to send him a ticket to Raleigh. He had been gone for 15 days and was ready to go home. Because there was always the chance that Milani would come to North Carolina and want her bag, he checked two bags, his and hers, and went to the gate. Soon he heard his name called over the loudspeaker. He thought it must be for an upgrade to first class, but when he arrived at the airline counter, he was greeted by several policemen. Asked to identify his luggage — “That’s my bag,” he said, “the other one’s not my bag, but I checked it in” — he waited while the police tested the contents of a package found in the “Milani” suitcase. Within hours, he was under arrest.

 The article is a fun read, but it leaves a lot of important details till the end.  Meantime, this is the woman who Professor Frampton was trying to meet:

And here is Frampton:

Friday afternoon notes

1.  Maria Elena Perez of Nevin Shapiro infamy is in trouble with the Southern District of Florida.  Judge Moreno issued this order referring her to the disciplinary committee based on the NCAA investigation and her prior conduct. 

2.  Curt Anderson interviewed the FBI undercover informant in the Khan case.

3.  The Dyer building is still empty, but Miami Dade College wants to take it over.  From John Pacenti's article:

The Dyer building was left vacant due to health concerns after the Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse opened.
Chief U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno welcomes the idea of the college acquisition.
"Miami Dade College could make repairs for a fraction of the cost of the GSA," Moreno said. "They've done a magnificent job with the Freedom Tower."
The slim tower is a Miami landmark that the college took over in 2005. It was the home of the defunct Miami News and was used by the federal government to process refugees fleeing Fidel Castro's communist Cuba.
Moreno said Padron intends to preserve the historic nature of the courthouse but noted some security changes would be needed. Tunnels link the Dyer courthouse to the Federal Detention Center across the street, and access would need to be sealed. The courthouse also connects to other buildings in the federal complex.

 

Your next Magistrate will be one of these 5 candidates

Richard A. Beauchamp, a partner at Panza, Maurer & Maynard
Sowmya Bharathi, Assistant Federal Public Defender
Candace Duff, a partner at Greenberg Traurig
Steven Petri, Assistant United States Attorney
Alicia Valle, Assistant United States Attorney

Two private lawyers, two prosecutors, and one public defender.

Thanks to my tipsters.

Tipsters unite

Yesterday the Magistrate Appointment Committee, led by David Rothman, interviewed 15 applicants (which narrowed the field from over 50).

 The committee then recommends that the District Court interview 5 of those applicants. The process is very secretive, so I don't have the 5 names yet, but if you know of someone who got out of committee, let me know.

In other news, Eric Holder defended the Aaron Swartz prosecution yesterday. I think the exchange is pretty telling:

I think that's a good use of prosecutorial discretion to look at the conduct, regardless of what the statutory maximums were and to fashion a sentence that was consistent with what the nature of the conduct was," Holder testified, adding that Swartz and his attorneys had rejected the plea offers.
Holder was responding to questioning from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who suggested that the prosecutors handling the case were overzealous and guilty of misconduct.
In 2011, Swartz was charged with breaking into a computer network at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and downloading 4.8 million documents from JSTOR, a subscription service for academic articles.
Swartz was an accomplished programmer and activist who argued that more online information should be free to the public.
Critics, including Swartz's family and members of Congress, have accused prosecutors of seeking excessive penalties in the case.
"Does it strike you as odd that the government would indict someone for crimes that would carry penalties of up to 35 years in prison and $1 million fines, and then offer them a three month prison sentence?" Cornyn asked.
Holder insisted that the charges themselves are less important than the penalties sought by prosecutors and said several months in prison would have been appropriate based on the crime.
But Cornyn worried that such harsh potential penalties could empower prosecutors to "bully" defendants into pleading guilty.

Shocker! Defendants being bullied into pleading guilty.  Say it isn't so!

Khan convicted

The jury came back this morning guilty on 4 counts in the only defendant remaining in the Pakistani Taliban case.

Why doesn't the SDFLA have a drug court?

Seems like this District would benefit from such a program, which are up and running in numerous districts around the country. The front page of the NY Times profiles the new federal drug court and Judge Gleeson, who is yet again out in front of cutting edge criminal practice:

Federal judges around the country are teaming up with prosecutors to create special treatment programs for drug-addicted defendants who would otherwise face significant prison time, an effort intended to sidestep drug laws widely seen as inflexible and overly punitive. The Justice Department has tentatively embraced the new approach, allowing United States attorneys to reduce or even dismiss charges in some drug cases. The effort follows decades of success for “drug courts” at the state level, which legal experts have long cited as a less expensive and more effective alternative to prison for dealing with many low-level repeat offenders. But it is striking that the model is spreading at the federal level, where judges have increasingly pushed back against rules that restrict their ability to make their own determination of appropriate sentences. So far, federal judges have instituted programs in California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, South Carolina, Virginia and Washington. About 400 defendants have been involved nationwide. In Federal District Court in Brooklyn on Thursday, Judge John Gleeson issued an opinion praising the new approach as a way to address swelling prison costs and disproportionate sentences for drug trafficking. “Presentence programs like ours and those in other districts mean that a growing number of courts are no longer reflexively sentencing federal defendants who do not belong in prison to the costly prison terms recommended by the sentencing guidelines,” Judge Gleeson wrote. The opinion came a year after Judge Gleeson, with the federal agency known as Pretrial Services, started a program that made achieving sobriety an incentive for drug-addicted defendants to avoid prison. The program had its first graduate this year: Emily Leitch, a Brooklyn woman with a long history of substance abuse who was arrested entering the country at Kennedy International Airport with over 13 kilograms of cocaine, about 30 pounds, in her luggage. “I want to thank the federal government for giving me a chance,” Ms. Leitch said. “I always wanted to stand up as a sober person.”

Doug Berman has uploaded the Gleeson opinion here, and it's worth a read.

Claudio Osorio pleads guilty

But not before Judge Altonaga. He was scheduled to plead before her this week, but she recused. The case was reassigned to Judge Dimitrouleas and he took the plea today to two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). AUSA Lois Foster-Steers is prosecuting the case.

Verdict in Steiner case

The verdict is in for Steve Steiner and Henry Fecker. It was a 54 count indictment. Fecker was found not guilty of all counts and Steiner was found not guilty of about 75% of the counts. Trial was before Judge Kathy Williams.

Interesting Jury Question in Khan case (UPDATED)

Khan Jury Question 

And here's Judge Scola's response:

Court's Response 

Thanks very much to my tipster!

UPDATE -- here's the latest question.  Fascinating!

Another Kahn Question by

Verdict(s) today?

The juries are out in the Pakistani Taliban case and the Steve Steiner Mutual Benefits money laundering case.  If you hear anything, shoot me an email and I will post it.  Thanks!

Why won't the Supreme Court hear a prosecutorial misconduct case

There have been a bunch lately, but the Court keeps turning them away.  Justice Sotomayor issued a rare statement condemning the prosecutor (joined only by one other Justice), but why won't the Court take these cases? 

From her conclusion:

It is deeply disappointing to see a representative of the United States resort to this base tactic more than a decade into the 21st century. Such conduct diminishes the dig nity of our criminal justice

system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice. In discharging the duties of his office in this case, the Assis tant United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas missed the mark. 

 

Also troubling are the Government’s actions on appeal. Before the Fifth Circuit, the

Government failed to recognize the wrongfulness of the prosecutor’s question, instead

calling it only “impolitic” and arguing that “even assuming the question crossed the line,” it did not prejudice the outcome. Brief for United States in No. 11–50605, pp. 19-20. This prompted Judge Haynes to “clear up any confusion—the question crossed the line.” 478 Fed. Appx. 193, 196 (CA5 2012) (concurring opinion). In this Court, the Solicitor General has more appropriately conceded that the “prosecutor’s racial remark was unquestionably improper.” Brief in Opposition 7–8. Yet this belated acknowledgment came only after the Solicitor General waived the Government’s response

to the petition at first, leaving the Court to direct a response.

 

I hope never to see a case like this again.

"Attorney Maria Elena Perez blazes her own path in defense of former UM booster Nevin Shapiro"

That's one way to put it.  It's the headline for John Pacenti's in depth article about Maria Elena Perez, the lawyer representing the lowest of low snitches, Nevin Shapiro. 




Donna Shalala is outraged by it all: 

UM president Donna Shalala attacked the NCAA for its flawed investigation and maintains the university has been punished enough through two self-imposed postseason bans even though the NCAA gives the final word on punishment for violations.
Shalala is incredulous that the NCAA is taking the word of Perez's client, "who made a fortune by lying."

 Welcome to the federal criminal justice system.  This is the dirty little secret of federal criminal cases -- they are built on snitches like Shapiro every day of the week.  The criminal defense bar has gotten so used to it they it's become learned helplessness.  Maybe cases like this will push people to fight back instead of laying down while taking the shocks over and over again.  

Does DNA collection from arrestees violate the 4th Amendment?

That's the question before the High Court this morning.  Police, of course, say it's a vital tool:

The bolstered federal database has helped solve thousands of crimes by linking DNA evidence at old crime scenes to newly arrested people.
"Behind every number is a human story, a case in which a buccal swab sample collected from a felony arrestee played a crucial role in solving a violent crime," says a brief submitted by all 49 other states backing Maryland's law.
On the other side is Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested on assault charges in 2009. Police collected DNA from a simple cheek swab and matched it to a 2003 rape case, for which King then was convicted. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed that decision, ruling that the cheek swab constituted a search without either a warrant or suspicion of another crime. Now the state, backed by the federal government, is challenging that ruling.

The NY Times, on the other hand, says no way:

The state did not, however, obtain a warrant to collect his DNA, nor did it establish that it had probable cause to think that his DNA would link him either to the assault or the rape. It did not even meet the lowest threshold for some searches, by establishing that it had a reasonable basis for taking his DNA, or showing that the DNA evidence would disappear unless it was collected.

Maryland argues that collecting and analyzing DNA is like fingerprinting. But the purpose of fingerprinting is to identify someone who has been arrested. Maryland was using DNA for investigative purposes, not identification, and doing so without legal justification.

Maryland also argues that the incursion on Mr. King’s privacy was minor compared with the major benefit in crime-solving. But the number of crimes solved with DNA from people arrested has been low. The substantial harm to innocent people that could result from the misuse of DNA greatly outweighs the benefits. And the safeguard against such harm is the Fourth Amendment, whose fundamental protections the Maryland court upheld. The Supreme Court should do likewise.

 

Will be interesting to see how this one comes out.  Predictions?

The twists and turns of the "psychic fraud" case

I haven't covered this story all that much, but Paula McMahon over at the Sun-Sentinel has been all over it, and here's the latest:

Federal prosecutors and investigators received a severe scolding in court this week from one of the judges overseeing a $25 million fraud case against a Broward County family of fortune tellers.
"I'm disappointed by the shameful conduct of the government here," the usually mild-mannered U.S. Magistrate Judge James Hopkins said during a hearing on defense allegations in federal court in West Palm Beach on Wednesday. "There's much about the government's conduct in this case that's very troubling."
Among the problems identified by the judge were grand jury testimony that included "ethnic stereotypes" about Gypsies or the Roma allegations an investigator had a financial relationship with alleged victim and best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux; that agents and a prosecutor helped Deveraux in a court case about money she owed her ex-husband; and that some "victims" were included in the indictment without agents ever contacting them to confirm any crime occurred.
The judge also called some of the investigative team's actions "deficient" and said they raised "the specter of misconduct."
Defense lawyers asked the judge to dismiss charges against Rose Marks and eight family members alleging the behavior was sufficiently egregious.
The judge said he felt the alleged misconduct did not rise to the level required by law to dismiss the charges against the family before their April 1 trial. Four family members have pleaded guilty but may withdraw those pleas if the case is dismissed for governmental misconduct.
Hopkins said the defense can raise the issue at trial and ask U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, the trial judge, to toss out the case before it goes to a jury. Hopkins will make his formal recommendations soon, but the defense is expected to ask Marra, who has the final say, to reconsider.
Hopkins became aggravated Wednesday when he said the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was not "'fessing up to significant errors."

Meantime, last night was the big federal bar event at the Hyatt.  It was a success as usual with a large turnout.  Most of the federal judges were there and the lines at the bar weren't too long.  So good times for all!

Have a nice weekend.

"I kindly suggest to you that you go to a hospital."

That was 77-year old defendant Hafiz Kahn to the AUSA during cross-examination, suggesting that he was mentally ill for the questions he was asking.  The prosecutor responded: "KAHHHHHHNNNNNNN!"



Actually, he said: "I'll let the jury make that determination, Mr. Khan."

Judge Scola then sent the jury out and told the defendant to chill: "You are never going to convince Mr. Shipley to change his mind about you. The only chance you have is to convince the jury to believe you."

Curt Anderson from the AP has all the dramatic details here.  A snippet:

"In front of God, I did the right thing. In front of my tribe, I did the right thing," Khan testified in Pashto through an interpreter. "It was all lies, and it was all because of the money."
Khan spent a second day on the witness stand in his own defense on charges of funneling at least $50,000 to the Pakistani Taliban beginning in 2008. He previously testified that money he sent overseas was for the poor, for his extended family and for a religious school, or madrassa, he owns in the Swat Valley. He insisted he has never supported the Taliban.
The imam repeatedly clashed during cross-examination with Assistant U.S. Attorney John Shipley, who pressed Khan on whether the FBI recordings represented his true beliefs on terrorism. Among other things, the recordings have Khan praising the attempted bombing in 2010 in New York's Times Square and hoping that Americans would die trying to capture former al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
In taped conversations with the informant Siddiqui, Khan answered, "There are many times I am agreeing with him, but that does not mean that I mean it. I didn't want to harm anyone."

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/02/20/2887605/fla-imam-claims-extremist-talk.html#storylink=cpy

The twists and turns of the Pakistani Terror trial

Last week witnesses were testifying via video feed from Pakistan.  The feed cut-off midstream (with some arguing that the Pakistan government was responsible because they were tipped off).  Judge Scola ordered that the trial continue, and now the defendant 77-year old Hafiz Khan has taken the stand.  Day two of his testimony is today.

From the AP (Curt Anderson):

"We are innocent of these accusations," said Khan, speaking in Pashto through an interpreter. "We have no connection with them whatsoever. We hate them."
Khan, who became a naturalized U.S. citizen after arriving here in 1994, said he is proud to live in this country, is registered to vote and does not even know how to fire a gun. Frequently stroking his flowing white beard and adjusting his skullcap, the imam of a downtown Miami mosque said he does not own a television and concentrates mainly on Islamic studies and teaching – something he feels utterly free to do in the U.S. because of its guaranteed rights.
"It is really a good thing to be a citizen of the United States," Khan said.

Tuesday morning notes (UPDATED)

1. The Washington Post has a good article about Clarence Thomas and the fascination behind him not asking questions.  A snippet:

Some justices have told others that Thomas sometimes jots down inquiries and urges Justice Stephen G. Breyer, his friend and seatmate on the bench, to pose them.
The two often confer during oral arguments, and Thomas confirmed during a recent appearance at Harvard Law School that the talkative Breyer sometimes throws in a Thomas question.
“I’ll say, ‘What about this, Steve,’ and he’ll pop up and ask a question,” a laughing Thomas told the law students. “I’ll say, ‘It was just something I was throwing out.’ So you can blame some of those [Breyer questions] on me.”
And another thing is the Harvard speech itself. Although he described himself during the interview with HLS Dean Martha Minow as “quite introverted” and said he could “go a lifetime without making public appearances,” his extracurricular life is as busy as that of any of his colleagues.
***
He described himself as someone who tends “to get along well with people.” He was lavish with praise for his colleagues — especially the liberals.
He called Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg the epitome of what a judge should be. “She makes all of us better judges,” he said. He called President Obama’s most recent nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, a delight and said he told her that “it’s going to be a joy disagreeing with you for years to come.”
And Thomas once again explained why he doesn’t ask questions at oral arguments.
“I think it’s unnecessary to deciding cases to ask that many questions and I don’t think it’s helpful,” he said. “I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their case and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.”

 2. In local news, Paul Calli who is representing the Lewis Tein firm, is showing why people shouldn't rush to judgment (via DBR):

A longtime accountant who was fired by the Miccosukee Indians days before she was to give a deposition in the tribe's malpractice lawsuit against the Lewis Tein law firm testified tribal lawyer Bernardo Roman III tried to influence her testimony and wanted her to lie.
Jodi Goldenberg, who worked for the Miccosukees for 21 years, said at the deposition attended by Roman that she was not told why she was fired but suspected there were several reasons.
"One being that I know the truth in some of these cases that are going on, and I think that what I'm going to say is contrary to what the tribe's attorney wants me to say. Maybe he wanted me to appear to be a disgruntled employee," Goldenberg said.

UPDATED:

3.  Two big search cases from the Supreme Court today.  From SCOTUSblog:

First opinion — Harris (dog sniffs) — Kagan for the Court reversing the Florida S. Ct. unanimously.
The Court holds that because training and testing records supported the dog's reliability, and the defendant failed to undermine that evidence, there was probable cause to search the defendant's truck.... 

Here's the opinion in Florida v. Harris....  The Harris opinion does not refer to the Jardines opinion, so we may not get it today after all.  From the Harris opinion: "The Florida Supreme Court flouted this established approach to determining probable cause." (Ouch.)...

Third opinion -- Bailey v. United States -- per Kennedy, the Second Circuit is reversed. The vote is 6-3, with Breyer, Thomas, and Alito dissenting....
The Court holds that Michigan v. Summers is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises.  Justice Scalia writes separately.  Kagan and Ginsburg join both the Court's opinion and the Scalia concurrence.

This was the case about searching someone on the basis of a warrant to search a house, when they have left the premises.  Here is the opinion in Bailey v. US....
The Court will have more opinions at 10 am tomorrow. Again, we do not know which ones or how many there will be.  The other dog-sniffing case is 11-564, Fla. v. Jardines.  It did not come out today.

Jury duty

Yesterday I was in Rumpole's building serving as a potential juror.  It was an interesting experience.  I wasn't selected to actually sit on a jury, but I participated in Judge Andrea Wolfson's voir dire in a misdemeanor battery case. 

Judge Wolfson was fantastic and ran a very good jury selection. I was impressed by her demeanor and how she handled the lawyers and the jury pool.

It's eye-opening to see the process from the juror's point of view.  I don't think lawyers realize how much waiting around there is, but more on this later.

So what did I miss yesterday?  The Pakistan trial has hit some bumps in the road.  Rhino horn smuggling.  And Justice Scalia is hunting again, this time with Justice Kagan.  He spoke about it during a Q&A with Nina Totenberg at the same time the President gave his State of the Union Address.  From the AP:

Lest anyone think the timing of his talk was anything other than a coincidence, Scalia tried to put those thoughts to rest.
"I didn't set this up tonight just to upstage the president," he said. "The State of the Union is not something I mark on my calendar, like Easter or Yom Kippur."
Scalia said the justices in attendance inevitably keep their eyes on the chief justice, who decides when it is appropriate to applaud.
If the president says the United States is a great country, clap away, he said. But no justice can clap "if it's anything anybody can disagree with," Scalia said.
Prodded by Totenberg, Scalia also commented on the hunting ability of Justice Elena Kagan, who has joined Scalia to shoot quail, pheasant and larger animals.
Last year, on a trip to Wyoming, they had a license to go after antelope and mule deer. But there were none to be found.
Instead, "she ended up killing a white-tailed doe, which she could have done in my driveway" in suburban Virginia, Scalia said.
He said Kagan, who never handled a gun before joining the court, is just a beginner, but "she dropped that doe in just one shot."

Judge Carnes quotes Macbeth in USA v. Davis

Hot off the presses, he starts the opinion this way:

The defendant himself described the events leading up to this appeal when he told the judge, “Sir, I don’t see how you’re going to go forward with this trial. It’s turmoil.” But there was more than just turmoil. With two troubled jurors wanting to be excused and no alternates to replace them, and with a problem defendant stirring the brew, there was “[d]ouble, double, toil and trouble.”* The pot began to simmer in jury selection and boiled over during the trial, after jeopardy had attached. The double trouble produced a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, raising the specter of double jeopardy.

* William Shakespeare, Macbeth, act 4, sc. 1.

The conclusion: "This case having strutted and fretted its hour upon the appellate stage, we conclude that the curtain should be dropped, at least on this Act of it."

"The legal system in this country, it’s not a joke. It’s not a toy for rich idiots to play with."

That's Bill Maher discussing the $5 million lawsuit filed by Donald Trump against him:



The letter from the Cooley lawyer is absurd.

In local news, Curt Anderson covers the Pakistani Taliban case:

Testifying via video from Pakistan, a man accused by the U.S. of conspiring with an elderly Miami-based Muslim cleric to funnel thousands of dollars to Taliban terrorists insisted Monday the money was for innocent purposes, including a potato chip factory run by the cleric's son-in-law.
Ali Rehman was the first of as many as 11 witnesses expected to testify from an Islamabad hotel in defense of 77-year-old Hafiz Khan, who faces four terrorism support and conspiracy counts. Rehman is named in the same indictment and refused to come to the U.S. Other witnesses were unable to get U.S. visas in time. Rehman said he handled three separate $10,000 transactions for Khan in 2008 and 2009. Most of the money, he testified, went to Anayat Ullah, who is married to Khan's daughter Husna and started the potato chip business with his father-in-law as an investor.
Rehman said he has known Ullah since they were children in Pakistan's Swat Valley and wanted to do him a favor. "That favor was that his father was sending him some money, and I used to deliver it to him or sent it to him," said Rehman. He spoke in Pashto that was translated into English for the 12-person jury watching him on flat-screen televisions.

Monday morning

Hope everyone had a nice weekend.  Not much doing in SDFLA. 

What's left of Judge Scola's Pakistani Taliban trial continues today with the defense case.  Curt Anderson is covering it here:

Defense witnesses are set to testify from Pakistan in the South Florida trial of a Muslim cleric charged with financially supporting the Pakistani Taliban.

The first of up to 11 witnesses will testify Monday from an Islamabad hotel. The testimony will be beamed to a Miami federal courtroom via video hookup. Defense lawyers will ask questions in Pakistan, with prosecutors doing cross-examination using the video feed.

 There were a bunch of press conferences last week in the District about a new IRS crackdown on identity theft and tax fraud.  Apparently we are #1 again in this sort of fraud with the highest number of complaints of any state and the highest number for any city.

Also last week, there were a number of really good CLEs.  There was the appellate seminar, which ended up with a party at Judge Barkett's house for all the attendees.  Very cool move by Judge Barkett. 

The DCBA had a huge corporate law seminar at the Coral Gables Country Club, which was well attended.  The guest speaker was Brad Meltzer, who was excellent. 

And FACDL, along with FIU, had Tom Mesereau speak as part of its fantastic trial lawyer seminar series.  All reports say Mesereau (who was Michael Jackson's lawyer) was dynamic.

  Out of District -- this week will be oral argument in the Barry Bonds case.  And the Ninth Circuit has agreed to cameras in the courtroom.  I don't think it will air live, but it's a start.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/02/11/3227991/testimony-from-pakistan-in-fla.html#storylink=cpy