Eastern District of California Blog

Wow, It's Been A Year (And Some) Already!

My one year blogging anniversary passed in February without me noticing.  Here are some thoughts on the first year plus and the one ahead:

Frequently Asked Questions:  The two questions I get asked the most about my blog are how many readers do you have and how come you don't get any comments.  On the first question, I now typically get 150-200 page views a day, less on weekends.  But it can spike up dramatically on particular posts.  By far, the most page views have been on my "bong" post, see 3/6/10 post, which was reposted throughout the blogsphere and internet.  Due to that blog entry being picked up by stumbleupon.com and other sites, I hit a high (no pun intended) of close to 3,000 page views one day.  As for cases, the Sekhon immigration fraud case has consistently attracted the most readers. 

I'm not sure why I don't get more comments.  I have had a total of about only 40 comments in my first year.  Some have suggested readers fear antagonizing judges.  Maybe.  But comments can be left anonymously (leave the email and url lines blank).  I also tend to avoid gossipy posts that might attract more comments.  I delete spam but otherwise have not censored comments. 

My First Year (and a couple months) and What's Ahead:  This blog is certainly a work in progress.  When I first started, my intention was mostly to provide a spot for defense attorneys to keep up to date on what's happening in the district and to highlight issues that might be helpful to my colleagues.  While those are still important goals, what surprised me is that the majority of readers appear to be non-practitioners who are simply trying to get info on a particular issue, person, or case.  Due to time constraints, I mostly just re-post stories from local papers because those only take me a few minutes.  While I'd prefer to add my two cents more often, it takes a lot more time to write my own stuff and I worry about getting myself into hot water.  Further, the topics I know the most about and have the best insights on are my own cases, which I don't comment on.  I would like to write more about specific topics, such as the reasons behind the exploding number of wiretap cases in the EDCA federal court.  Wiretap cases used to be rare here.  Now, they're a dime a dozen.  Why is that?  Finally, I recently upgraded to a plan that allows multiple bloggers and other features.  I'm toying with the idea of adding other bloggers, maybe even an anonymous one.  Any ideas or suggestions to improve this blog?  Thanks for your support.  --John

Sekhon Defendants' Sentencing Hearing Continued to June 29, 2010

With Jagdip Sekhon's forfeiture court trial still on-going, the Court has continued the sentencings for all five defendants in the Sekhon case from May 21 to June 29, 2010, at 11a.m.

Defendants' Motion To Suppress Wiretaps Filed in U.S. v. Harrison Jack

It's been a busy couple weeks for lengthy wiretap motions in the EDCA.  Here's the defendants' joint Harrison Jack Motion to Suppress Wiretap Intercepts.  [Sac Bee, 5/16/10].  Expect more motions by next Friday.

One More Week For Defense Motions In U.S. v. Harrison Jack

Defense counsel submitted a stipulation to the Court today requesting one additional week from May 15 to May 22 to file dispositive motions in United States v. Harrison Jack.  No change in court dates.

Mistrial Declared In Sutter County Jail Inmate's Civil Rights Suit

A federal court judge declared a mistrial Tuesday in a $6.7 million civil rights lawsuit filed by a state prison inmate who claimed gang members beat him in the Sutter County Jail while two deputies stood by, according to an attorney in the case.

Ryan Andrew Barnes, serving a 14-year sentence at Mule Creek State Prison for two Yuba City salon robberies, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in 2007.

After deliberating since Friday morning, the jury found two jail deputies not liable but split on Sutter County's liability, said one of Barnes' court-appointed attorneys, Katie Chang of the San Francisco law firm Latham and Watkins.

Former Sheriff Jim Denney and the Sutter County Board of Supervisors were originally named as defendants but were later dismissed.

The vote was 3-3 on the county's liability, with one juror undecided, said Chang. A status conference in the case is scheduled for May 27, she said.

Appeal Democrat, 5/11/10

The SK Foods "Big Tomato" Case Gets Saucier

Yesterday's LA Times reports that a paralegal on the defense team for SK Food's Frederick Salyer had her jail access restricted after she unwittingly brought in an almost nude photo of his girlfriend and other objectionable materials.  See also Sac Bee, 5/12/10  This should serve as a word to the wise for defense attorneys about the need to keep jail legal and personal correspondence separate:

According to court documents that were filed last week, Salyer’s defense attorney has had one of his firm’s paralegals banned from the Sacramento Main County Jail line-up room, which is where the 54-year-old has been meeting with his lawyers.

The reason? The paralegal had -- unknowingly, mind you -- brought in a piece of mail for Salyer from one of his girlfriends. What she didn’t realize was that the mail included, among other things, a naked photograph of the girlfriend “holding two tomatoes in front of her body,” according to a court filing.

Awkward.

The mail also included a head shot of the woman, a letter and an emery board -- a violation of jailhouse rules. (“His friends had heard him complain that his nails were ragged,” said defense attorney Malcolm Segal.)

“The jail advises that an emery board can be used to reshape other objects in prohibited ways,” federal prosecutors wrote in a statement filed with the Sacramento federal court. (The prosecutors, however, did not say what rule the produce-framed pin-up photo broke. They also declined to publicly release said photo.)

Segal said the news of the naughty package came as a shock to him and his staff, who said they had been receiving mail for Salyer from friends and relatives for quite some time, and had carried it into the line-up room without complaint -- and carried out mail for others from Salyer.

Salyer’s gift-sending pen pal had written “Atty Client” on the outside of the envelope, a phrase normally used to indicate that the contents would be protected by attorney-client privilege.

“No one in my office had considered searching the mail. No one had a clue what was in the envelope,” Segal said. “I have no idea what precipitated this” search of the mail by jail officials.

All incoming and outgoing mail is searched by the jail's staff, said Sgt. Tim Curran, spokesman for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department. As soon as mail is determined to be protected by attorney-client privilege, "it stops getting read," Curran said.

And Salyer, say prosecutors, has been pushing the envelope.

According to a declaration submitted to the court, Deputy Sheriff Jesse Brucker said he was taking Salyer back to his cell last week when the two started talking about the difference between personal mail and legal mail. Salyer, according to Brucker, said he was using the jail’s legal mail system to send letters to friends. The deputy said he told Salyer that was a no-no.

California Prisons' Behavior Modification Units, Part 2

Here's the second part of the Sacramento Bee's series on California Prison's "Behavior Modification" Units, Sacramento Bee, 5/10/10.  Sounds Clockwork Orange-ish. 

Sen Boxer Pleads For Quick Senate Vote On Judge Mueller

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved of Judge Mueller's nomination to the EDCA district court.  Sen. Boxer's Press Release calls for a quick vote by the full Senate:  “I am so pleased that the Judiciary Committee has advanced the nomination of respected Magistrate Judge Kimberly Mueller. When confirmed, she will be the first woman to serve on the Eastern District Court. The Eastern District is the nation’s busiest federal court – with more than 1,100 case filings per judge – so I am asking Majority Leader Reid to bring her nomination to the floor as soon as possible.”

Disability Rights Groups Sue Over Sacramento County's Mental Health Cuts

Disability rights groups are asking the federal court to intervene on behalf of thousands of Sacramento County mental patients who may soon be forced out of their community treatment programs because of budget cuts.

The lawsuit seeking class-action status, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, contends the cuts violate various state and federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and would be devastating to patients.

If the services are eliminated as planned on June 30, thousands of severely, chronically mentally ill people "will inevitably be exposed to increased harm of injury and death," the lawsuit claims.

Sacramento Bee, 5/7/10

Ninth Circuit Rejects California's Attempt To Ditch Prison Medical Receiver

In this 20-page Opinion, the Ninth Circuit rejected California's attempt to get rid of the court-ordered medical receiver over the California prison system:

A federal appellate court on Friday rejected the Schwarzenegger administration's attempt to rid itself of the court-appointed receiver charged with bringing prison medical care up to a constitutional standard.

The record of the protracted class action lawsuit supports the trial judge's ruling that, contrary to the administration's argument, appointment of a receiver goes "no further than necessary to correct the constitutional violations, and was the least intrusive means," a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals declared. 

Sac Bee, 5/1/2010