For those of you following the Dewey & LeBoeuf criminal trial, you know that the jury deadlocked last October after nearly six months of deliberations on dozens of charges against Steven H. Davis, the former chairman of Dewey, and two other former executives of the law firm, Stephen DiCarmine and Joel Sanders. The three men were accused of being the architects of an accounting fraud that enabled their law firm, Dewey & Leboeuf, to defraud its lenders and creditors during much of the financial crisis.
In January and February of this year, Manhattan prosecutors reached deferred prosecution agreements with Steven H. Davis and Zachary Warren, one of the original defendants.
The Manhattan prosecutors are now planning to retry the case against DiCarmine and Sanders, the remaining defendants. The trial is expected to begin early next year in the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan – just in time for your spring semester 2017 P.R. classes. Apparently, DiCarmine has communicated that he wants to replace his longtime lawyer, Austin Campriello.
Update on the case can be found here.
Source: Judiciary Court Files Charges Against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
The Alabama Court of the Judiciary on May 7 filed a complaint against Chief Justice Roy Moore for obstruction of the duty of Probate Judges to comply with the order of a federal court. Moore has been suspended with pay. Moore was previously removed for defiance of an order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse. He was reelected.
The Court of the Judiciary complaint relates to a January 6, 2016 Administrative Order by Moore which – after Obergefell v. Hodges – declared “Alabama probate judges have a ministerial duty not to issue any marriage license contrary to the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment or the Alabama Marriage Protection Act [which]remain[s] in force and effect.”
The Court asserts six counts of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Canon 2A for failure to respect and comply with the law”.
Moore’s Liberty Counsel defenders filed a federal action to enjoin the suspension. See complaint.
Source: Trump, Christie and Judicial Impartiality
That neither race, ethnicity, nor gender presumptively bars a judge or juror from passing impartially on a case is deeply embedded in our law. Only a week ago in Foster v. Chatman, Warden the Supreme Court vacated a capital conviction because the Prosecutor arbitrarily excluded prospective jurors who, like the defendant, were African American.
That an African American judge may pass on matters in which race is relevant is deeply embedded in our law, as is the corollary principal that female may pass on women’s issues. The landmark judicial opinion on the issue is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Local 542, 388 F. Supp. 155 (974). there Judge A. Leon Higgiinbotham, later Chief Judge of the Third Circuit, repudiated the proposition asserted in a motion to disqualify him in a class action alleging discrimination by a building trades union. He wrote:…
California’s Second Commission for the Revision of the Rules of Professional Conduct continues its work to update California’s ethics rules (and switch to the ABA Model Rules format). The Commission’s website includes a page where it regularly posts its draft rules for comment. For example, in April 2016 the Commission posted its proposed drafts of Rules 1.2, 1.7, and 7.1-7.5, among other rules. In May 2016 the Commission posted drafts of Rules 3.3-3.6 and a proposed rule dealing with prosecutorial responsibilities. The June 2016 column by State Bar of California President David Pasternak urged California lawyers to submit their comments to the Commission. Given California’s size and influence, this work deserves careful consideration by all lawyers.