HAPPY NEW YEAR TO THE SDFLA!

Happy New Year!

While the rest of the country freezes, we are nice and cozy down here in the Southern District of Florida.  I hope everyone enjoys their family and friends during this short break.  All the best for 2018!

If you are looking for some light reading over the holiday, here's a fun article from law.com with laugh lines at the Supreme Court.  A few examples:

Noel Francisco’s wedding cake. (Masterpiece v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)
Justice Neil Gorsuch: “In fact, I have yet to have a wedding cake that I would say tastes great.”
Solicitor General Noel Francisco:  And, Your Honor, my wedding cake, the top of it is still sitting in our freezer, and I’m sure it no longer tastes great.”

An “obscure” question from Breyer. (Wilson v. Sellers)
Breyer: “Now, that’s extreme, but you see my point. Okay? What’s the answer to my point?”
Georgia Solicitor General Sarah Warren: “Justice Breyer, I’m not sure exactly what the, what the question was.”
Breyer: “Sorry. Well, from your pleasant expression, it sounded to me as if you were understanding my obscure question.”

Party like a justice. (District of Columbia v. Wesby)
Kagan: “And when looked at from the reasonable partygoer’s view, there are these parties that, once long ago, I used to be invited to, where you didn’t know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties? And, you know, so—and you know, it just is not obvious that the reasonable partygoer is supposed to walk into this apartment and say, ‘Got to get out of here.’”

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated."

“Given the caliber of nominees I’m seeing, I’m not comfortable creating a spot that might be filled by someone consistent with the qualifications, or lack of qualifications, of some of the folks I’ve seen nominated." -- Anonymous appellate judge quoted in this BuzzFeed article from yesterday.

Of course there's no issue with staying on board until there's a President you agree with, but other than the occasional outlier, this criticism seems wrong to me.  Whether or not you agree with the politics of Trump's nominees so far, the majority of them seem qualified. Speaking of which, there are still 5 openings waiting to be filled in the Southern District of Florida.  Sources tell me that all 10 JNC finalists have been interviewed by the Senators and/or the White House.  Sources also tell me that the Senators won't be narrowing the list down to 5 recommendations for President Trump (as has been done with previous administrations).  Instead, all 10 nominees will be sent to the President's desk and he will pick 5 out of those... or 5 different selections... or a combination.  No one seems to know.

There's also this bubbling fight with the ABA over Trump's judicial picks.

Merry Christmas one day late in NY Fifa trial

Merry Christmas one day late in NY Fifa trial...

...Bruce Udolf showed the NY prosecutors how things are done from the 3-0-5 (Update—okay, okay... technically Udolf is from the 9-5-4). Not guilty for Manuel Burga, the former president of Peru's soccer federation, who has been in trial the last few months in the Eastern District of New York. The other two defendants were convicted.

Here's Burga leaving the courthouse with Udolf after the win.

Happy Festivus...

... for the rest of us.

Some airing of grievances:

1) Judges who don't vary down from the guidelines for first-time non-violent offenders.

2) Prosecutors who don't have open file discovery.

3) Defense lawyers who don't share what their cooperating clients are going to say.

4) The sentencing guidelines.

5) The few remaining judges who don't order early exhibit lists and pre-trial Jencks.

6) The good-faith exception to the 4th Amendment.

7) "Harmless error."

8) "PCA"

9) Arresting someone without giving them the opportunity to surrender.

10) Min-mans

CA11 holds that police can't tase someone for calling 911

CA11 holds that police can't tase someone (in this case a pregnant woman!) for calling 911. One wonders how this was even a question... but I digress:

Mrs. Brand then turned to Ms. Velazco and asked for a phone so she could call 911. Ms. Velazco handed Mrs. Brand the home phone. Deputy Pardinas ordered Mrs. Brand to “drop the phone,” but she did not. Instead she announced she was dialing 911. Mrs. Brand began dialing when suddenly and without warning, Deputy Pardinas tased her. The tase caused Mrs. Brand to fall to the floor in “[h]orrible, excruciating” pain.
Deputy Pardinas ordered Mrs. Brand to lie flat on her stomach. Deputy Pardinas began “punching [her] back,” striking Mrs. Brand about three times in an attempt to get her to lie on her stomach. Mrs. Brand said she couldn’t lie flat because she was pregnant. She kept one of her legs “elbowed out” to protect her stomach. Deputy Pardinas kicked Mrs. Brand’s leg several times to get her into a fully prone position.
***
As far as Deputy Pardinas knew, Mrs. Brand was not suspected of any crime when the deputy deployed her taser. Mrs. Brand was not the subject of the arrest warrant. And although Mrs. Brand was eventually arrested by Deputy Casal for obstruction and cruelty to children in the third degree, these alleged offenses were based on conduct that occurred before Deputy Pardinas joined Deputy Casal at the front of the house. Deputy Pardinas did not see, and did not know about, the altercation between Mrs. Brand and Deputy Casal that led to the charges against Mrs. Brand.
7 Those charges do not therefore support the reasonableness of Deputy Pardinas’s use of force. See Rodriguez v. Farrell, 280 F.3d 1341, 1352–53 (11th Cir. 2002) (“We do not use hindsight to judge the acts of police officers; we look at what they knew . . . at the time of the act.”).
Second, Mrs. Brand did not pose any “immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others” when Deputy Pardinas tased her. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. It is true Mrs. Brand was “extremely upset [and] agitated” that the officers would not get out of her house. But, under the Brands’ version of events—which we accept at this stage—Mrs. Brand was never violent or aggressive toward the officers. For example, Ms. Velazco reports that Mrs. Brand never even yelled. Indeed, Ms. Velazco testified that “[t]he only aggressive acts came from the officers.” Mrs. Brand was simply standing in her foyer, asking the officers to leave, holding a phone, and attempting to dial 911. The defendants point to the fact that Mrs. Brand disobeyed Deputy Pardinas’s order to “drop the phone.” But there was nothing dangerous about Mrs. Brand holding a phone in the first place, especially where she made clear she was using it only to dial 911. Her refusal to comply with the order to drop the phone did not pose any threat to the safety of the officers, and certainly was not a threat that would necessitate the use of a taser with no warning to Mrs. Brand. Cf. Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272, 1288 (11th Cir. 2011) (“[R]esisting arrest without force does not connote a level of dangerousness that would justify a greater use of force.”).
Third and finally, Mrs. Brand was neither actively resisting arrest nor attempting to escape when Deputy Pardinas tased her. Graham, 490 U.S. at 396, 109 S. Ct. at 1872. By all accounts, she had not even been told she was under arrest at the time she was tased.
Based on the Brands’ account of the facts, we are persuaded that Deputy Pardinas “used force that was plainly excessive, wholly unnecessary, and, indeed, grossly disproportionate under Graham.” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1198. We therefore conclude that Deputy Pardinas’s tasing of Mrs. Brand constituted excessive force in violation of Mrs. Brand’s Fourth Amendment rights.