Source: http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2013/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 20:58:22+00:00

Document:
Christopher George is hoping to get his prison term reduced, provided that federal prosecutors think his anticipated testimony against two South Florida doctors is worth a reward. But a recorded call the 32-year-old inmate made to his father from the Palm Beach County Jail may have put a kink in his plans.
Despite a message that plays at the start of every jail inmate call warning all parties that they are being recorded, the two men had a phone conversation that went on for about 15 minutes last week — with dad John George giving a play-by-play of how another witness testified in court and coaching his son on what questions might come up and what might sound good on the witness stand.
On the recorded call, George, his father and a woman who accompanied the dad to court last week, were heard hashing out the details of the first trial witness's testimony and what appeared to be playing well to the jury and what wasn't working.
"We took a lot of notes …. we took pages of notes," John George, 62, told his son during the call, explaining that it didn't look good when a witness downplayed any benefit he might receive for his testimony. "The defense attorneys … jump on that. They will say, 'How much time to do you expect to get off.'"
After detailing the highlights of the defense's strategy and line of questioning, John George threw in a critique of attorney Michael D. Weinstein's cross-examination of the witness: "This guy … really can slice things up … He was pretty good."
The businesses brought in so much cash that his staff quickly stopped using cash registers because they filled up too quickly, he said. They tried cash drawers for a while but George said that slowed down business too much and eventually they settled on dropping the cash into two-gallon trash bins by their desks.
Hassled by police and reporters, George said he moved from the first clinic to locations on Cypress Creek Road in Fort Lauderdale, then Boca Raton and Palm Beach County.
As the business evolved, he realized that a prior criminal conviction for illegally importing and selling steroids was bringing more unwanted attention and he put the clinics in a friend's name, though he still ran them.
George testified he saved some money, stashing $5 million in safes in his mom's attic and bedroom, but he also blew a lot of it. He bought three homes, some boats and so many luxury cars that he struggled to recall the details.
"I went through a lot, I don't remember all of them," George testified, listing off Range Rovers, BMWs, a Mercedes, a Lamborghini, a Bentley, and a freightliner truck that cost more than $200,000.
Some great in-depth coverage by Ms. McMahon.
-- Meantime, another court is fed up with discovery/Brady violations. This time the 6th Circuit.
-- Finally, a big congrats to Robert Luck, who was named Circuit Court Judge by Governor Scott. Luck is a good guy, and smart. A nice addition to the bench.
1. Although Dore Louis withdrew his request for NSA records and although the judge denied his motion based on that withdrawal, the feds filed another classified pleading to "clarify" what it said in the earlier classified filing. Of course that clarification is redacted, so we have no idea what needed to be explained.
UPDATED -- THIS LIST BELOW IS INCORRECT. The correct list is here.
*I also received the award this year. I have a policy about not posting about me or my cases, but I wanted to post about Tom. Also, Judge Scola ordered me to put this up. It is a real honor for me to have received this award.
4. The 9th Circuit really gives meaning to Rule 16 and Brady. Check out the latest, from Judge Kozinski, here. Another conservative judge is frustrated with how our criminal justice system is operating. But when is the last time you saw an 11th Circuit opinion like this?
1116, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003).
regarding defendant’s Speedy Trial Act claim.
1198, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
[Jusice Kagan] resorted to the game Clue—or the plot line of the musical version of Clue, to be exact—to illustrate her point. Kagan wrote: "(Think: Professor Plum, in the ballroom, with the candlestick?; Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the rope, on a snowy day, to cover up his affair with Mrs. Peacock?)"
It was an example of the vivid writing, aimed at making complex concepts understandable that Kagan has adopted in her first years on the high court.
But Alito, the sole dissenting justice, was apparently not impressed. Making the point that different ways of committing a crime do not make them different crimes, Alito wrote a footnote responding to Kagan’s reference.
Sunday, June 30, 2013 at 1:00 p.m.
Americans for Immigrant Justice https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/AIJustice.
Donations will fund the Holly Skolnick Human Rights Fellowship.
Holly R. Skolnick, a veteran attorney at the Miami-based firm Greenberg Traurig, died on Saturday of melanoma. She was 59.
In an email to firm personnel, co-President Hilarie Bass, said that Skolnick “will be remembered as a close friend to so many of us. A brilliant lawyer, a wonderful friend, and someone who was always committed to finding justice for those who needed her help.
Skolnick held degrees from the University of Wisconsin/Madison, 1976, and Harvard University Law School, 1980.
Skolnick is survived by her husband, federal appellate attorney Richard Strafer, daughter Jordan Strafer, and her parents.
Celebrate -- pots and pans edition!
One is classified and one is public.
Here's the public one, which was posted by Paula McMahon from the Sun-Sentinel.
Federal prosecutors filed two versions of their response in federal court in Fort Lauderdale late Wednesday. The unclassified, publicly filed version was 21 pages long and included several lines that stated "CLASSIFIED INFORMATION REDACTED."
Prosecutors filed a longer, classified version of their response with supporting information under seal with U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenbaum — so even the defense attorneys cannot see it — saying the judge would need additional information to make her ruling.
Prosecutors claimed in court records that the secretive NSA program did not capture "information about where a cellular telephone was geographically located at the time a call was made."
"Thus, the government does not possess the records the defendant seeks," they wrote.
The defense will have an opportunity to respond before the judge issues her ruling, which the prosecution asked should be sealed if it contains any classified information.
If the government does not have the data, then so be it. But 20 pages seems like a lot of words to say we don't have it. I found the argument heading on page 17 interesting: "Neither Brady nor Rule 16 permit the defendant to conduct a fishing expedition of highly classified NSA Data."
Last week, the blog broke the story of Dore Louis' motion seeking NSA phone records, and Judge Rosenbaum's order requiring the government to respond. The story got a lot of attention, which was pretty neat.
As a result of the filing of Brown’s Motion to Compel Production (DE:778) and CIPA Section 5 Notice (DE:779), the government’s response will require the discussion of classified material. Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, and Section 2 of the Security Procedures established under Pub. L. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025 by the Chief Justice of the United States and promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of CIPA the Court shall designate a CISO in any proceeding in a criminal case in which classified information is reasonably expected to be within.
To assist the Court and court personnel in handling any motions, pleadings and implementing any orders relating to the CIPA proceedings, the government requests that the Court designate Daniel O. Hartenstein as the CISO for this case, to perform the duties and responsibilities prescribed for CISO’s in the Security Procedures promulgated by the Chief Justice.
Under th[e] contract, a company may transport cargo at the Port in exchange for complying with various requirements. The two directly at issue here compel the company to (1) affix a placard on each truck with a phone number for reporting environmental or safety concerns (You’ve seen the type: ‘How am I driving? 213–867–5309‘) and (2) submit a plan listing off-street parking locations for each truck when not in service.
Meantime, you can listen to the classic 8675309/Jenny right here.
Anthony Davila, respondent here, entered a guilty plea to conspiracy to defraud the United States by filing false income tax returns. He maintains that he did so because a U. S. Magistrate Judge, at a pre-plea in camera hearing and in flagrant violation of Rule 11(c)(1), told him his best course, given the strength of the Government’s case, was to plead guilty. Three months later, Davila entered a plea on advice of counsel. The hearing on Davila’s plea, con- ducted by a U. S. District Judge, complied in all respects with Rule 11.
The question presented is whether, as the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held, the violation of Rule 11(c)(1) by the Magistrate Judge warranted automatic vacatur of Davila’s guilty plea. We hold that Rule 11(h) controls. Under the inquiry that Rule instructs, vacatur of the plea is not in order if the record shows no prejudice to Davila’s decision to plead guilty.
denial of a rehearing en banc. I continue to adhere to the view expressed by Judges Henry Friendly and Raymond Randolph that dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc, particularly where one did not participate in the decision, are “of dubious policy,” United States v. Shaygan, 676 F.3d 1237, 1238 (11th Cir. 2012) (Pryor, J., respecting the denial of rehearing en banc) (quoting United States v. N.Y., New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 276 F.2d 525, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (Friendly, J., concurring in the denial of reh’g en banc, joined by Lumbard, C.J.), and that “denials of rehearing en banc are best followed by silence,” id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Indep. Ins. Agents of Am. v. Clarke, 965 F.2d 1077, 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (Randolph, J.)). But my colleagues do not share that view, and their dissents should not go unanswered. Lest anyone doubt the correctness of our decision in this matter, I must respond to five misunderstandings in the dissents that follow.
“Cases arguably warranting en banc review are those in which the stakes are unusually high or the law is especially unclear.”64 It does honor to the law, promotes justice, and serves the interests of an informed public when citizens learn that appellate judges have given difficult and important cases exacting scrutiny—not just one judge or even the three-judge panel, but an entire court of appeals.As Judge Clark put it in the case that started out this essay, “I do believe the court gains standing by encouraging free and thorough canvassing of these issues without the deadening influence of constraining restrictions.”65Dissentals are here to stay. Get over it.
defendant, when convicted, forfeit to the United States as part of his sentence the lucre he acquired as a result of his criminal activity. In this case, the defendant, a lawyer, deposited the lucre in his law firm’s bank accounts, where it was commingled with the firm’s receipts from legitimate clients. The question this appeal presents is whether the money in the bank accounts at the time the defendant was charged is subject to forfeiture. We hold that it is not.
In 1972, the Marvel Comics Group published a comic book featuring the "Ghost Rider" -- a motorcycle-riding superhero with supernatural powers and a flaming skull for a head. The issue -- which sold for twenty cents -- told the story of Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stunt rider who promised his soul to the devil to save his adoptive father from cancer.
Defendant Brown urges that the records are important to his defense because cell-site records could be used to show that Brown was not in the vicinity of the attempted robbery that allegedly occurred in July 2010. And, relying on a June 5, 2013, Guardian newspaper article that published a FISA Court order relating to cellular telephone data collected by Verizon,1 Defendant Brown now suggests that the Government likely actually does possess the metadata relating to telephone calls made in July 2010 from the two numbers attributed to Defendant Brown.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), when an “aggrieved person”2 moves “to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under [FISA],” the Court must provide the Attorney General of the United States with an opportunity to file an affidavit under oath indicating whether disclosure or an adversary hearing on the defendant’s request would harm the national security of the United States. If the Attorney General files such an affidavit, the Court must conduct an in camera and ex parte review of the application, order, and other materials to determine whether the surveillance of the movant was lawfully authorized and conducted. If the Attorney General declines to file such an affidavit, however, the Court may conduct this inquiry in open court.
Upon review of the application, order, and other materials, if the Court concludes that Defendant Brown was an “aggrieved person” and that the surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, it must grant Defendant’s Motion and preclude the Government from using the evidence. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(g). And, even if the Court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized or conducted, it must order discovery or disclosure to the extent that due process requires it, although the Court must otherwise deny the motion. Id. Here, Defendant asserts that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), due process requires the production of the July 2010 telephone records because they are anticipated to be exculpatory in that they are expected to show that Defendant Brown was not physically located at the scene of the alleged attempted Brink’s truck robbery in July 2010.
Fascinating. The rest of the order, including the footnotes, are also worth reading.
Any predictions on how the government will respond? Will we get an affidavit from General Holder?
Is sentencing out of whack?
Sioux City-based U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett on Friday became one of a handful of U.S. judges to declare public opposition to federal sentencing guidelines for methamphetamine dealers.
He wrote that he considers them to be “fundamentally flawed,” not based on empirical data and too harsh for lower-level drug figures.
Bennett — declaring in a 44-page ruling that he has a “fundamental policy disagreement” with the methamphetamine portion of guidelines that federal judges are supposed to consider in sentencing criminals — cut the sentence of Sioux City drug dealer Willie Hayes to six years and three months from a possible 15 years, eight months.
And yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that applying a new version of a guideline violated the ex post facto clause if that guideline called for a higher sentence, even though the guidelines are now advisory.
The guidelines, and sentencing in general, has become a lot like the tax code. No one likes them, but no one has any really good ideas on how to fix them.
Sometimes, I think the solution is the state system, but then I see that Chad Ochocinco was sentenced to 30 days today even though the plea agreement called for no jail time because he congratulated his lawyer for the result by slapping his behind.
A wonderful essay by Judge Kopf.
The better portion of the essay, in my opinion, is the story that follows about Suggett.
1. People were worried about DNA collection.... now our government is mining our telephone calls with secret court orders. James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, responds here.
Michael: He takes her back to the fountain to try and retrieve the coin she threw in with Sean since it’s defective now cuz’ he didn’t choose her. Which she said 5 months ago was the biggest mistake he’s ever made, but now she’s over it. I don’t think I’d be dipping my hand in that fountain water anytime soon. I’m sure drunk PA’s probably use that as their toilet during the late night hours. So in addition to his diabetes, I’m guessing we can expect Michael to contract Hep C this season.
Florida is moving ahead with a plan to offer kosher meals in all state prisons by the end of the year, a corrections official testified at a hearing Tuesday on a U.S. Justice Department lawsuit demanding such a program.
James Upchurch, assistant Department of Corrections secretary for institutions, said food following the strict Jewish dietary rules would be served beginning in July at the 2,000-inmate Union Correctional Institution in north Florida and then would expand through the fall to 60 facilities across the state.
"We will make the policy work," Upchurch told U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz at the hearing. "When you run a prison, there are security problems with everything you do. We don't see any that are insurmountable at this point."
Florida previously offered kosher meals at selected prisons for three years until 2007, then began a pilot program at a South Florida prison in 2010. The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division filed a federal lawsuit last year demanding that the state be required to offer kosher food at all prisons.
A Justice Department lawyer, Michael Songer, said that despite the state's assurances, the U.S. wants the judge to issue a kosher food order so that the policy couldn't simply be changed in the future. Kosher diets and other tenets of religious faith are protected for prisoners by the 2000 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, he said.
"The state is not willing to make an enduring commitment to providing kosher meals," Songer said. "We believe Florida has been refusing to provide kosher meals in violation of the law for years."
The judge did not immediately issue a ruling, nor did she decide on a motion by attorneys for Muslim inmates seeking to join the case so they can get halal or kosher meals in prison. Seitz said Florida and the U.S. should be permitted to respond to that motion in writing before she rules.
Iowa judge to prosecutors: "You won't like me when I'm angry."
One of Iowa's most prominent federal judges is accused of improperly playing the role of "prosecutor-in-chief" in criminal cases by ordering the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence that can result in longer prison sentences, court records show.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephanie Rose has complained to U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa Nicholas Klinefeldt that his prosecutors aren't providing her with information that can be used to extend prison sentences, according to a Des Moines Register review of emails that are part of a court case and were recently unsealed.
Court transcripts show Rose, a former prosecutor who is now in her first year on the bench, has clashed with prosecutors over that issue in at least three criminal cases this year.
In a case involving convicted drug dealer Bryan Holm, Rose ordered prosecutors to provide evidence that could extend Holm's prison sentence on a weapons charge. When they refused, citing a plea agreement they had signed, Rose called a police officer to the stand, questioned the officer herself and imposed a sentence that was two to three years longer than what prosecutors had contemplated.
Rose then sent prosecutors an email comparing herself to the comic book superhero the Hulk, saying there was "a lesson" there for attorneys: "You won't like me when I'm angry."
Holm's attorney, Dean Stowers, says in court papers his client was "caught in the crossfire" between Rose and federal prosecutors who refused to do her bidding. Stowers, who is appealing Holm's sentence, says the Hulk email "tends to support the view that there is a price to be paid" if prosecutors don't take her advice.
"Any defendant, including Mr. Holm, would be particularly alarmed by such judicial advocacy in seeking to enhance his sentence," Stowers wrote in court filings.
"Most defendants have a hard enough time defending against the prosecuting attorney. … They at least should expect the judge will not be assuming the role of prosecutor-in-chief," wrote.
Thanks to a great tipster, I am able to report that Judge Scola said in a recent scheduling order that he will not be holding trials or hearings in the flooded courthouse.
From the order: "Until the unacceptable, unsafe, and unaddressed flooding and water-intrusion issues affecting the Fort Lauderdale courtroom assigned to this Judge are remedied, no trials or hearings will be held in Ft. Lauderdale. Trials of Fort-Lauderdale-Division cases will be held in the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Federal Courthouse in Miami, Florida."
Trial lawyers will love the use of the trilogy.
issues: (1) whether the admission of 14 in-court identifications of Whatley by bank employees violated his right to due process; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of Whatley’s conviction for the attempted bank robbery as evidence of a modus operandi; (3) whether the district court abused its discretion when it declined to grant Whatley a new trial after the parties discovered that the jurors had considered extrinsic evidence during their deliberations; and (4) whether the district court erred when it applied a four-level sentencing enhancement for abduction of the bank employees because Whatley ordered the bank employees to move around to different areas within the banks.
We conclude that, based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire, __ U.S. __, 132 S. Ct. 716 (2012), which requires no preliminary examination for an identification not arranged by law enforcement officers, the admission of the in-court identifications of Whatley did not violate his right to due process. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Whatley’s conviction for the attempted bank robbery and that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Whatley a new trial. But we also conclude that the district court erred when it applied the enhancement for abduction. We affirm Whatley’s convictions, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing with instructions to apply the two-level enhancement for physical restraint of the employees instead of the four-level enhancement for abduction.
Procrastination is not generally seen as a good character trait, but in constitutional adjudication it can often be a virtue. In my opinion, we need not and should not decide the effect of Perry here because Mr. Whatley cannot prevail on his due process claim even under our pre-Perry precedent.
Nor does the evidence on Count 1 allow the government to discharge its burden. It is true, as the majority writes, that three bank employees identified Mr. Whatley as the perpetrator of the June 2003 robbery at trial. But these in-court identifications cannot be considered in a vacuum. To begin with, the identifications were made in 2010, seven years after the bank robbery in question, and it does not take a Nobel laureate in medicine to understand that “[t]ime’s the thief of memory.” STEPHEN KING, THE GUNSLINGER 161 (Signet rev. & exp. ed. 2003).
The Court, per Kennedy, says it's like fingerprinting and photographing.
Justice Scalia authors the dissent, joined by Kagan, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor.
The issue presented to the Court was: "Whether the Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes."
The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incrimi nating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and with out exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment. Whenever this Court has allowed a suspicionless search, it has insisted upon a justifying motive apart from the investigation of crime.
liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1806
 § 1806
 v. 
 v.