Astronomers are now reporting that they believe that in the Milky Way there are 100 billion planetary solar systems - stars that have planets orbiting them.
If you consider that there are believed to be in excess of 170 billion galaxies in the universe, you can really begin to appreciate the significance of the announcement. This is especially so because we are still finding new life on Earth ("World's smallest frog discovered").
Given that humans have been seeking to communicate with extraterrestrial life since the beginning of recorded history, the announcement is quite exciting. We should assume that other life in the Galaxy would be trying to communicate with outside life as well. The question that we should now be looking into is how would a far more advanced life try to do it? Certainly we will continue to develop better ways of "looking" across great distances to learn of the existence of these extraterrestrial systems, but knowing they are there and having an effective way of trying to communicate are very different.
Anyhow, not really related to the law, but interesting stuff, now I will focus on how to communicate with some AUSA re the true meaning of Brady, a task that is far more daunting than reaching ET.
In other news...it is okay to kill a bunch of enemy combatants in war, but God help you if you pee on their dead bodies! Seems a bit confusing to me if you really think about it.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Trading Drugs for Guns is a no no!
Turns out that trading drugs for guns in the 11th Circuit will qualify for prosecution under 18 u.s.c. 924(c), for "possession" as opposed to "use" of a firearm. Seems reasonable. Good on ya Pryor!
Monday, January 9, 2012
What is a "Person"?
"My head knocks against the stars.
The Ninth Circuit took 64 pages to debate the question of what a "person" is...en banc, and still did not arrive at a consensus (spoiler - "person" means a real person). All the more reason for Rick Santorum to follow through with his threat to disband the 9th!
I think it would have been more fun if Kozinski wrote a one-page "who am I" poem.
As issue is 18 u.s.c. 876(c), which deals with mailing threats to persons. From the dissent:
"Disagreeing, the majority concludes that Havelock’s manifesto was not addressed to natural persons because it indicates nothing about the identity of any individual person to whom the communication supposedly was addressed. Unlike the majority, however, I can find nothing in § 876(c) that precludes liability when a threatening communication is addressed to, and threatens mass murder against, a community rather than a specific individual. I also can think of no reason why Congress would not have been concerned about threats
to commit mass murder. I would therefore hold that Havelock’s communications were addressed to natural persons."
It is an interesting read, if for not other reason than to ponder why a man who showed up at the Superbowl with a newly purchased AR-15 and lots of ammo, was not prosecuted for a terrorism related offense - there will be a quiz next week to see if you can figure out the answer.
Here is a link to the opinion: US v. Kurt Havelock
My feet are on the hilltops.
My finger-tips are in the valleys and shores of universal life.
Down in the sounding foam of primal things I reach my hands and play with pebbles of destiny.
I have been to hell and back many times.
I know all about heaven, for I have talked with God.
I dabble in the blood and guts of the terrible.
I know the passionate seizure of beauty
And the marvelous rebellion of man at all signs reading "Keep Off."
My name is Truth and I am the most elusive captive in the universe"
- Carl Sandburg
The Ninth Circuit took 64 pages to debate the question of what a "person" is...en banc, and still did not arrive at a consensus (spoiler - "person" means a real person). All the more reason for Rick Santorum to follow through with his threat to disband the 9th!
I think it would have been more fun if Kozinski wrote a one-page "who am I" poem.
As issue is 18 u.s.c. 876(c), which deals with mailing threats to persons. From the dissent:
"Disagreeing, the majority concludes that Havelock’s manifesto was not addressed to natural persons because it indicates nothing about the identity of any individual person to whom the communication supposedly was addressed. Unlike the majority, however, I can find nothing in § 876(c) that precludes liability when a threatening communication is addressed to, and threatens mass murder against, a community rather than a specific individual. I also can think of no reason why Congress would not have been concerned about threats
to commit mass murder. I would therefore hold that Havelock’s communications were addressed to natural persons."
It is an interesting read, if for not other reason than to ponder why a man who showed up at the Superbowl with a newly purchased AR-15 and lots of ammo, was not prosecuted for a terrorism related offense - there will be a quiz next week to see if you can figure out the answer.
Here is a link to the opinion: US v. Kurt Havelock
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Former AUSA Smackdown!
If you ever wondered whether or not there is a significant difference between litigating in Federal and State criminal court, look no further than Cliff Berry Inc. v. State of Florida.
Case reversed on Jury instruction, but took time to address a Richardson issue.
Richardson, for those of you who don't know, basically says that a trial court must conduct an inquiry when there is a discovery violation. In federal court, that would be the equivalent of actually holding AUSAs responsible when they...let's say...fail to turn over Giglio until the week before trial, when they were supposed to do it 14 days after the discovery order was entered.
Apparently, the former AUSA was practicing like he was back over in federal land where the lunatics run the asylum and there is no accountability as to prosecutors. Here is the section dealing with the discovery violation:
"The record demonstrates that on November 26, 2008 – the day Schneir began testifying and before the State concluded its direct examination – defense counsel alerted the trial court to a possible discovery violation after it became clear that Schneir’s trial testimony was a significant departure from his pre-trial
statements and deposition:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, one request before we break, it’s through the Court to the prosecutors. . . .
Apparently now, with Mr. Schneir[’s] testimony and questions, it’s clear that Mr. Schneir’s testimony is at
odds with both his sworn [testimony] in May to the prosecutors, and his deposition in June. And I’m asking if there are other statements, interviews or notes that occurred since that time, that are inconsistent with his prior testimony, that under Brady, that they be produced.
. . . .
THE COURT: So you’re invoking Brady, and I’m assuming, Mr. Scruggs, you’re aware of that, and
anything they are entitled to, you have turned over?
(Tr. 1545-46.)
The prosecutor denied being in possession of any such materials and asserted that “if I had any such reports or anything, they would have gotten them a long time ago.” (Tr. 1546.) [This line of course is cut and paste from the standard response in federal court...'the government is aware of...and will comply...]
Defense Counsel continued:
It’s clear from the question asked about dates and how he [Schneir] lied and all the meetings about dates, that Mr. Scruggs, before he asked these questions, knew that the testimony was going to vary from the sworn testimony previously given.
I believe that the oral statements have been made to Mr. Scruggs or to Mr. Fiedler that are inconsistent, that is within the obligation the prosecutor owes, and I cannot believe that Mr. Scruggs asked the questions, and is
surprised to hear that now the witness is testifying in variance.
So, I think there are statements out there, with all respect to Mr. Scruggs that Mr. Scruggs knows perfectly well and I ask for them now.
(Tr. 1546.)
In the exchange with the trial court that followed, the prosecutor agreed to think about and produce any undisclosed oral or written statements to the defense over the holiday weekend.
As we have already noted, based on the Assistant State Attorney’s Script, [in federal land, this would be referred to as work product, rather than the testimony the prosecutor prepared for the witness] it is clear that the State was aware Schneir would depart significantly from his pretrial sworn statement and deposition at trial before Schneir took the stand. For example, the Script summarizes the information the Assistant State Attorney expected to elicit from Schneir as follows:
• “Theft actually started in early 2000.”
• With respect to the outbound fuel lines, fuel was stolen “approx 12 times in 2000 to March 2003,” and with respect to the inbound fuel lines, fuel was stolen “approx 12 times.”
(Script, at R. P3364-65.)
The Script also outlines questions the Assistant State Attorney planned to (and did, in some form) ask Schneir at the trial:
• “Why lower numbers [and] wrong times for fuel theft?”
• “Why did you give wrong dates in depo?”
• “Why did you give wrong numbers/times in depo?” (Below this series of questions, the words “MINIMIZE INVOLVEMENT” were written in another person’s handwriting. These are the exact words Schneir used at trial to explain his departure from his pretrial testimony.)
(Script, at R. P3370.)
And, in fact, the Assistant State Attorney later confirmed at a post-trial hearing that he learned of the changes in Schneir’s testimony the weekend before Schneir took the stand. The State failed to notify the defense that
Schneir’s testimony had changed until after Schneir began testifying, and, exactly what the State told the defense is all but certain, as the dissent suggests."
...
"In his pre-trial sworn statements and a pre-trial deposition, Schneir contended that the Defendants began stealing jet fuel from the Fuel Farm in June 2002. At trial, Schneir testified that the theft of jet fuel began much earlier, in January 2000. Schneir's trial testimony at least doubled or tripled the amount of fuel he claimed the Defendants stole from the fuel farm and dramatically increased the duration of the crime. Although the State was aware that Schneir’s testimony at trial would drastically vary from his pre-trial sworn statement and deposition, the State failed to notify disclose the Defendants until Schneir had taken the stand."
The opinion goes on to reason that although the testimony was not Brady or impeachment material, the State was obligated to produce it when it became aware, and failed to do so, resulting in prejudice to the defense.
The contrast is really quite fascinating. In federal court, there is no chance to depose or obtain statements pretrial, the manner in which this would have unfolded would have been that at trial, the guy would have testified to the higher fuel amounts, and then the government would have (if they were acting in good faith) produced the earlier, different statements. The case would have gone up and the 11th would have PCA affirmed the conviction.
Great work by the boys over at Carlton Fields!
Case reversed on Jury instruction, but took time to address a Richardson issue.
Richardson, for those of you who don't know, basically says that a trial court must conduct an inquiry when there is a discovery violation. In federal court, that would be the equivalent of actually holding AUSAs responsible when they...let's say...fail to turn over Giglio until the week before trial, when they were supposed to do it 14 days after the discovery order was entered.
Apparently, the former AUSA was practicing like he was back over in federal land where the lunatics run the asylum and there is no accountability as to prosecutors. Here is the section dealing with the discovery violation:
"The record demonstrates that on November 26, 2008 – the day Schneir began testifying and before the State concluded its direct examination – defense counsel alerted the trial court to a possible discovery violation after it became clear that Schneir’s trial testimony was a significant departure from his pre-trial
statements and deposition:
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge, one request before we break, it’s through the Court to the prosecutors. . . .
Apparently now, with Mr. Schneir[’s] testimony and questions, it’s clear that Mr. Schneir’s testimony is at
odds with both his sworn [testimony] in May to the prosecutors, and his deposition in June. And I’m asking if there are other statements, interviews or notes that occurred since that time, that are inconsistent with his prior testimony, that under Brady, that they be produced.
. . . .
THE COURT: So you’re invoking Brady, and I’m assuming, Mr. Scruggs, you’re aware of that, and
anything they are entitled to, you have turned over?
(Tr. 1545-46.)
The prosecutor denied being in possession of any such materials and asserted that “if I had any such reports or anything, they would have gotten them a long time ago.” (Tr. 1546.) [This line of course is cut and paste from the standard response in federal court...'the government is aware of...and will comply...]
Defense Counsel continued:
It’s clear from the question asked about dates and how he [Schneir] lied and all the meetings about dates, that Mr. Scruggs, before he asked these questions, knew that the testimony was going to vary from the sworn testimony previously given.
I believe that the oral statements have been made to Mr. Scruggs or to Mr. Fiedler that are inconsistent, that is within the obligation the prosecutor owes, and I cannot believe that Mr. Scruggs asked the questions, and is
surprised to hear that now the witness is testifying in variance.
So, I think there are statements out there, with all respect to Mr. Scruggs that Mr. Scruggs knows perfectly well and I ask for them now.
(Tr. 1546.)
In the exchange with the trial court that followed, the prosecutor agreed to think about and produce any undisclosed oral or written statements to the defense over the holiday weekend.
As we have already noted, based on the Assistant State Attorney’s Script, [in federal land, this would be referred to as work product, rather than the testimony the prosecutor prepared for the witness] it is clear that the State was aware Schneir would depart significantly from his pretrial sworn statement and deposition at trial before Schneir took the stand. For example, the Script summarizes the information the Assistant State Attorney expected to elicit from Schneir as follows:
• “Theft actually started in early 2000.”
• With respect to the outbound fuel lines, fuel was stolen “approx 12 times in 2000 to March 2003,” and with respect to the inbound fuel lines, fuel was stolen “approx 12 times.”
(Script, at R. P3364-65.)
The Script also outlines questions the Assistant State Attorney planned to (and did, in some form) ask Schneir at the trial:
• “Why lower numbers [and] wrong times for fuel theft?”
• “Why did you give wrong dates in depo?”
• “Why did you give wrong numbers/times in depo?” (Below this series of questions, the words “MINIMIZE INVOLVEMENT” were written in another person’s handwriting. These are the exact words Schneir used at trial to explain his departure from his pretrial testimony.)
(Script, at R. P3370.)
And, in fact, the Assistant State Attorney later confirmed at a post-trial hearing that he learned of the changes in Schneir’s testimony the weekend before Schneir took the stand. The State failed to notify the defense that
Schneir’s testimony had changed until after Schneir began testifying, and, exactly what the State told the defense is all but certain, as the dissent suggests."
...
"In his pre-trial sworn statements and a pre-trial deposition, Schneir contended that the Defendants began stealing jet fuel from the Fuel Farm in June 2002. At trial, Schneir testified that the theft of jet fuel began much earlier, in January 2000. Schneir's trial testimony at least doubled or tripled the amount of fuel he claimed the Defendants stole from the fuel farm and dramatically increased the duration of the crime. Although the State was aware that Schneir’s testimony at trial would drastically vary from his pre-trial sworn statement and deposition, the State failed to notify disclose the Defendants until Schneir had taken the stand."
The opinion goes on to reason that although the testimony was not Brady or impeachment material, the State was obligated to produce it when it became aware, and failed to do so, resulting in prejudice to the defense.
The contrast is really quite fascinating. In federal court, there is no chance to depose or obtain statements pretrial, the manner in which this would have unfolded would have been that at trial, the guy would have testified to the higher fuel amounts, and then the government would have (if they were acting in good faith) produced the earlier, different statements. The case would have gone up and the 11th would have PCA affirmed the conviction.
Great work by the boys over at Carlton Fields!
Monday, December 19, 2011
Judge Pryor Loves Free Speech!!!
Some folks often point out that Judge Pryor seems to be a very very very conservative jurist. Whether that criticism comes from his facial expressions (some might call smirks) when confronted with a liberal thought or argument, or the general tenor of his body of work, it may be time to rethink the position.
In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, judge Pryor wasn't satisfied with just affirming a trial court's denial of a requested injunction to prevent Augusta State University from discriminating against a potential enrolee because she had expressed homophobic sentiment and wanted to be a multicultural counselor, so he specially concurred to let everybody know just how much he loves free speech:
"But we have never ruled that a public university can discriminate against student speech based on the concern that the student might, in a variety of other circumstances, express views at odds with the preferred viewpoints of the university. Our precedents roundly reject prior restraints in the public school setting.
...
"A few decades ago, the prevailing view of the psychiatric profession maintained that homosexuality was a treatable mental disorder. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2d ed. 1968). As this record makes plain, the prevailing view changed. This shift in psychiatric orthodoxy occurred largely because professionals who had been taught that homosexuality was a disease of the mind, but who rejected that view, argued successfully that the psychiatric diagnostic criteria should be amended. See Herb Kutchins & Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy 55–77 (1997) (describing professional efforts to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSMII).
This change in opinion would have taken much longer if public universities had been able to expel students who rejected the prevailing view and intended to argue that homosexuality was not a mental disease. As the First Amendment protected the professionals who successfully advocated against the then-prevailing view of the psychiatric profession, so too does it protect Keeton should she decide to advocate that those professionals got it wrong."
I wholly agree with the opinion and argument. But something makes me suspicious of Judge Pryor's desire to make his position so crystal clear...I am not sure why, but if I may take a moment to speculate as to what Judge Pryor may have intended the concurrence to mean, I may be able to get my thoughts in order:
'Dear Newt:
Should you be elected President in a conservative tidal wave, please do not be offended by my opinion in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, et al.. In fact, I am happy to be subpoenaed before Congress to explain under the escort of US Marshals (an idea of yours that I fully support) that I specially concurred so I could make clear that people who hate homosexuality, evilution, the environment and puppies, are all free to use whatever academic exertions they choose to convince those tree hugging homo liberals otherwise, and if need be, obtain degrees so that they can provide a scientific basis for what we all know is true.
Yours Truly,
J.P.
P.S., when you nominate me for the Supreme Court and I am appointed, I promise not to wear silly gold stripes on my robe.
xoxo
P.P.S.
F the liberals.
In Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, judge Pryor wasn't satisfied with just affirming a trial court's denial of a requested injunction to prevent Augusta State University from discriminating against a potential enrolee because she had expressed homophobic sentiment and wanted to be a multicultural counselor, so he specially concurred to let everybody know just how much he loves free speech:
"But we have never ruled that a public university can discriminate against student speech based on the concern that the student might, in a variety of other circumstances, express views at odds with the preferred viewpoints of the university. Our precedents roundly reject prior restraints in the public school setting.
...
"A few decades ago, the prevailing view of the psychiatric profession maintained that homosexuality was a treatable mental disorder. See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2d ed. 1968). As this record makes plain, the prevailing view changed. This shift in psychiatric orthodoxy occurred largely because professionals who had been taught that homosexuality was a disease of the mind, but who rejected that view, argued successfully that the psychiatric diagnostic criteria should be amended. See Herb Kutchins & Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy 55–77 (1997) (describing professional efforts to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSMII).
This change in opinion would have taken much longer if public universities had been able to expel students who rejected the prevailing view and intended to argue that homosexuality was not a mental disease. As the First Amendment protected the professionals who successfully advocated against the then-prevailing view of the psychiatric profession, so too does it protect Keeton should she decide to advocate that those professionals got it wrong."
I wholly agree with the opinion and argument. But something makes me suspicious of Judge Pryor's desire to make his position so crystal clear...I am not sure why, but if I may take a moment to speculate as to what Judge Pryor may have intended the concurrence to mean, I may be able to get my thoughts in order:
'Dear Newt:
Should you be elected President in a conservative tidal wave, please do not be offended by my opinion in Keeton v. Anderson-Wiley, et al.. In fact, I am happy to be subpoenaed before Congress to explain under the escort of US Marshals (an idea of yours that I fully support) that I specially concurred so I could make clear that people who hate homosexuality, evilution, the environment and puppies, are all free to use whatever academic exertions they choose to convince those tree hugging homo liberals otherwise, and if need be, obtain degrees so that they can provide a scientific basis for what we all know is true.
Yours Truly,
J.P.
P.S., when you nominate me for the Supreme Court and I am appointed, I promise not to wear silly gold stripes on my robe.
xoxo
P.P.S.
F the liberals.
Dust in the Wind
""My name is OZYMANDIAS, King of Kings."
Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
Kim Jong-il - Dead.
I wonder whether those who abuse their power ever think about how they will be remembered?
"The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
Nor you, ye Proud, impute to these the fault
If Memory o'er their tomb no trophies raise,
Where through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault
The pealing anthem swells the note of praise.
Can storied urn or animated bust
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can Honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?"
Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!
No thing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that Colossal Wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
-Percy Bysshe Shelley
Kim Jong-il - Dead.
I wonder whether those who abuse their power ever think about how they will be remembered?
"The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,
Awaits alike th' inevitable hour:-
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.
Nor you, ye Proud, impute to these the fault
If Memory o'er their tomb no trophies raise,
Where through the long-drawn aisle and fretted vault
The pealing anthem swells the note of praise.
Can storied urn or animated bust
Back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?
Can Honour's voice provoke the silent dust,
Or Flattery soothe the dull cold ear of Death?"
-Thomas Gray
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Jorge A. Perez A Bit Defensive?
I thought it was a very nice gift, but isn't he a bit defensive?
On behalf of all Miamians, I thank you for the gift.
On behalf of all Miamians, I thank you for the gift.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)