"Hell no."

 That's the response from over half of Florida's corrections officers when asked whether they would get the COVID vaccine.  Sigh....

From CBS4:

A Florida correctional officer polled his colleagues earlier this year in a private Facebook group: "Will you take the COVID-19 vaccine if offered?"

The answer from more than half: "Hell no." Only 40 of the 475 respondents said yes.
***
At FCI Miami, a federal prison in Florida, fewer than half the facility's 240 employees had been fully vaccinated as of March 11, according to Kareen Troitino, the local corrections officer union president. Many of the workers who refused had expressed concerns about the vaccine's efficacy and side effects, Troitino said.
In January, Troitino and FCI Miami warden Sylvester Jenkins sent an email to employees saying that "in an act of solidarity," they had agreed to get vaccinated and encouraged staff to do the same. "Even though we recognize and respect that this motion is not mandatory; nevertheless, with the intent of promoting staff safety, we encourage all staff to join us," the Jan. 27 email said.
Only 25 employees signed up. FCI Miami has had two major coronavirus outbreaks, Troitino said: last July, when more than 400 prisoners out of 852 were suspected of having the disease, and in December, when about 100 people were affected at the facility's minimum-security camp.

"The rich do not always enjoy legal advantages"

That's the title of my latest op-ed, which was run in the Jerusalem Post.  From the introduction:

Ghislaine Maxwell’s case has led to many uninformed takes about the American criminal justice system. One common theme is that rich people are treated better than the poor by the system.

Clemence Michallon's piece "What Ghislaine Maxwell's case teaches us about rich people justice," is just one example, but this argument misunderstands the American justice system in profound ways. As a lawyer as well as spokesperson for Ghislaine's family, I felt obligated to respond.

Contrary to the premise of the article, the rich do not enjoy enormous advantages in a federal criminal case. If anything, they are greatly disadvantaged.

Ghislaine Maxwell's case is a perfect example.

One of the reasons stated by the judge for denying bail is her wealth. Any other person charged with stale, 25-year-old allegations would be out on bail right now.

Ghislaine is being held in torturous conditions because the Bureau of Prisons deems her not to be a normal inmate permitted to be in the general prison population.

She is the target of relentless media attacks because of her wealth and fame. Reporters almost seem delighted in reporting that she is not being permitted to sleep and that she is losing her hair. Imagine the uproar if we treated anyone else like this.

Prosecutors in that case only offered her a deal after they were caught engaging in misconduct. Michallon points to the Lori Loughlin case as an example of "rich people justice." Absurd.  

Loughlin had a real defense and stood a good chance of being found not guilty at a trial, but prosecutors have so much power that they were able to bully her into pleading guilty or risk facing decades in prison. Her wealth and fame only fueled the prosecution; it certainly did not shield her.

Jurors are predisposed against wealthy defendants. Schadenfreude – enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others – abounds.

So too regarding judges who do not want to appear to be giving any benefits to those with money. ...

UF Law E-Discovery Conference

 I don't usually post about CLE events, but this one is free, remote, has lots of credits, and looks interesting.  It's UF's 8th annual e-discovery conference and our very own Judge Matthewman will be speaking.

Law.com also covers it here:

Just how active should judges be in the e-discovery process? It’s something that’s been pondered for years—perhaps most notably in the debates leading up to the 2015 e-discovery amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judges are often the guardians of justice for society. Thus, it’s reasonable to ask whether they should be forced to waste their time with games of rock-paper-scissors to settle discovery disputes between litigants in overzealous combat.

Chief Justice Roberts on an island?

 Check out this Linda Greenhouse piece in the NY Times:

Anyone who still needs proof of how the Supreme Court is changing need look no further than the single decision the justices handed down this week. The court held that a dispute that had become moot in the usual sense of that word — the problem was resolved before the case even went to trial — could be litigated nonetheless, because there was still something at stake: the one dollar the plaintiffs were seeking as damages for an asserted violation of their First Amendment right to free speech.

The holding was surprising in its generosity to the plaintiffs, as was the 8-to-1 vote, but that’s not what made Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski remarkable. Rather, it was the identity of the lone dissenter: Chief Justice John Roberts.

In more than 15 years on the court, the chief justice had never before filed a solitary dissenting opinion. In fact, he has rarely voted in dissent at all, and has written dissenting opinions even less frequently. During the term that ended last July, he was in the majority 97 percent of the time. No chief justice since Fred Vinson, during the 1949 term, has displayed that degree of alignment with his court. To the extent that the Roberts court had a center of gravity, Chief Justice Roberts was it.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s arrival in late October changed all that, and quickly. A few minutes before midnight on the night before Thanksgiving, the court issued an order suspending the indoor attendance limits that Gov. Andrew Cuomo had placed on religious services in areas of New York with high rates of Covid infection.

Merrick Garland confirmed

 And 20 Republicans joined in to confirm.

CNN covers it:

The Senate voted to confirm attorney general nominee Merrick Garland on Wednesday, sending the appellate judge on his mission to uphold the integrity of the Justice Department after its actions over the past years threatened to undermine it.

Garland was confirmed in a 70-30 vote.

The former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has been praised by members of both parties. He pledged in his nomination hearing last month to "fend off any effort by anyone" to politically influence the Justice Department's investigations, and that his first priority would be to fully prosecute the "heinous" crimes committed in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6.

"America can breathe a sigh of relief that we are finally going to have someone like Merrick Garland leading the Justice Department," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York. He called Garland "someone with integrity, independence, respect for the rule of law and credibility on both sides of the aisle."