Blog news

My apologies -- but work takes me away from the blog for the rest of the week.  I promise to be back on Monday morning with all of the happenings in the SDFLA.

“I don’t care what you do. Rig the f------- brakes on his car. F------ take him out. I don’t want to see him anymore.”

According to a Herald report, that is former Miami Lakes Mayor Mike Pizzi discussing his political rival Richard Pulido.

Sounds like a bunch of stupid talk:

In a series of meetings over the next month, however, Pizzi never expanded upon the threats toward Pulido. He soon told McGrath, a retired Hialeah cop who at the time chaired the town’s planning and zoning board, “Forget about him; he will self-destruct himself.” Not long after, police suspended the investigation without charging anybody with anything, officially closing it earlier this year.Pizzi, in a statement on Friday, said he categorically denied “intending personal or political harm to Richard Pulido or anyone else,” saying he had a bit too much to drink that evening and was goaded by McGrath into “meaningless, over the top, silly, ridiculous drinking talk.” He amended his statement Saturday, saying he was actually “humoring” McGrath, a man who he said engaged in “Oliver Stone conspiracy lunacies.”Pizzi’s attorneys also dismissed the probe as a non-story that they say never should have been made public, noting that detectives quickly found there wasn’t evidence to support allegations that the now-suspended Miami Lakes mayor would harm Pulido.They called McGrath an unreliable informant who targeted Pizzi at Shula’s after an evening of drinking — though McGrath told detectives that Pizzi had only two beers. They also argued that McGrath’s recording doesn’t show sinister intent but simply a passionate, drunken politician venting about an opponent.“This was never a real ‘hit’ investigation,” said attorney Ben Kuehne, who is representing Pizzi with attorney Ed Shohat. “And therein lies the problem with the story,” said Shohat.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/19/3700007/suspended-miami-lakes-mayor-pizzi.html#morer#storylink=cpy

Justices don't use email

I guess this is no surprise, and I assume that they wouldn't get much out of the Federal Bar's upcoming talk on social media, but it's still pretty interesting:

"Well, we either talk to each other, which is not a bad thing," said Kagan, to applause from the well-heeled audience of female CEOs and business leaders.
"Or we write memos to each other," she continued.
"And you know, you have to remember that the Court is an institution where...we're not horse trading. We're not bargaining. We're reasoning. And we're trying to persuade people. And often the best way to do that is by putting things down on paper in a kind of careful and deliberate way and saying this is what I think and, and giving people an opportunity to read a memo and to think about it and to reflect on it," she said.
"And so we do a lot of our communicating by these, it looks, it's sort of 19th century. It's very heavy ivory paper—it looks like it came out of the 1800s or something. But it seems to work pretty well," she added. "And when you think about it, how many emails have you sent that you wished you could take back? So, so we're careful and deliberative."

Visiting Judge Bowen issues strongly worded concurrence

From U.S. v. Rodriguez, it's definitely worth a read. Judge Bowen was visiting from the S.D. Georgia.

Judge Martin, for the majority, finds that the government didn't prove up 50 victims at sentencing:

Mr. Rodriguez argues that the District Court clearly erred when it found that his offense involved more than 50 victims. Although he acknowledges that the government presented 42 affidavits of victims who suffered a loss and a summary chart indicating that there were 238 victims total, he points out that the government provided no witnesses or underlying data to authenticate the government’s summary chart. For this reason, Mr. Rodriguez argues that the District Court’s finding is not supported by reliable and specific evidence. We agree.

And here's Judge Bowen's concurrence:

I concur in the opinion in full. I write specially to comment on the Government’s treatment of the sentencing proceedings.

This is another case wherein the Government has failed to come forward with evidence at a critical time. Unfortunately, important objections made by a defendant at a sentencing hearing are often dealt with as an afterthought. The Government’s cavalier disregard for the need of further evidence, specific references to a trial transcript, or another basis upon which the district court may make sustainable findings is all too typical. In this case, after a laboriously conducted two-week trial, resulting in a conviction we readily affirm, the Government’s willingness to allow the matter to conclude resting upon extrapolation, conjecture, and innuendo left the district court stranded with a well-prepared Presentence Investigation Report, some commentary, and little else.
***

Too often, energetic, successful prosecutors approach what is arguably the most important part of the case with a surprising level of inexactitude. Responsible advocacy demands more.

Transcript posted from the Kaley argument this morning

Here is the link.  And Justice Scalia got some laughter right from the start:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argument next this morning in Case 12-464, Kaley vs. United States.
Mr. Srebnick?
ORAL ARGUMENT OF HOWARD SREBNICK ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
MR. SREBNICK: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:
When the government restrains private property, the owner of that property has the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. For a criminal defendant who's facing a criminal trial, whose property has been restrained, that time is now, before the criminal trial, so that he or she can use those assets, that property, to retain and exercise counsel of choice.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, I -- you know, I -- I find it hard to think that -- that the right of property is any more sacrosanct than the -- the right to freedom of the person. And we allow a grand jury indictment without -- without a separate mini-trial to justify the arrest and -- and holding of -- of the individual. And if he -- if he doesn't have bail, he's permanently in
jail until the trial is over. And we allow all of that just on the basis of a grand jury indictment. And you're telling us it's okay for that -- maybe you think it's not okay for that.
But I think you're saying it's okay for that, but it's not okay for distraining his property. I -- I find it hard to -- to think that it's okay for the one and not okay for the other.
MR. SREBNICK: Justice Scalia, it's not okay for either.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Ah, okay. This is a bigger case than I thought.
(Laughter.)
MR. SREBNICK: The right to be released on bail, that is, the right not to be detained all the way until trial, under this Court's precedent in United States v. Salerno, the Court provided procedural safeguards to ensure that before someone is held all the way until trial, they would have a hearing, a hearing which would include a right to challenge the weight of the evidence and other factors.
We ask for something no different. Indeed, the indictment itself can justify the detention of the body and the detention of the asset until such time --