Jose Marquez was convicted nine years ago of drug conspiracy charges, following a complex two-month trial. He was sentenced to 72 months in prison, and ever since, he's been arguing with sporadic success that his lawyer botched the case.

Now, in an instructive decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman has given Marquez another chance. Marquez will get a new trial -- unless some settlement occurs first. Judge Friedman concluded, harshly:

"Had Mr. Marquez proceeded at trial without any legal representation -- no one to object to questions asked by the prosecutors and no one to cross-examine government witnesses -- he would have stood a better chance of acquittal...(his) counsel’s actions in this case were not those of a reasonably competent attorney, but rather of a lawyer who failed to prepare, think through arguments, and consider how her questions and objections might harm her client."

Which has got to hurt.

Friedman's decision issued Friday, which does not name Marquez's original attorney, marks the second time the judge has sided with Marquez. An earlier decision siding with the ineffective-counsel argument was overturned on procedural grounds.

The full details of how the attorney messed up are found in the new decision; but, in general, they can be summed up in the admonition: the purpose of cross examination is to make your side stronger, not weaker.

A Marine swears; imagine that. Ranks right up there with dog bites man.

But under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a member of the military can be court martialed for using indecent language. Which raises the question: when is language sufficiently indecent to merit punishment?

Consider this slightly edited version of a June 20, 2008 text message sent by former Marine Cpl. Jacob L. Johnson to a former girlfriend:

"I hope sumthin happens and ur [fxxxxxx] kidney stones shoot up through ur [fxxxxxx] head and blow ur brains out u [fxxxxxx] bitch I u rot in hell."

In an interesting new decision by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Johnson has caught a break. The appellate panel determined that Johnson's language, while coarse, did not rise to the level of deserving punishment. The judges noted that "the military environment is no more pristine now" than in past years and that:

"While that might be a sad commentary on the state of our society (or at least the current state of the English language), we must “filter[] out from punishment language that is colloquial vocabulary and may be routinely used by service members.”

The Aug. 25 decision, though, leaves intact other elements of Johnson's court martial on charges including assault and communicating a threat, which resulted in a bad conduct discharge.

Former California congressman Gary Condit has lost yet another court battle. Though, slaughter might be the better word for it

In an Aug. 19 ruling -- discovered Thursday by the previously vacationing Suits & Sentences -- the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals summarily dismissed Condit's appeal of a case won by Baskin & Robbins. As aficionados of the Condit saga may recall, the ice cream company had successfully sued Condit and his family for breach of contract in the operation of two Phoenix-area stores.

Having gone through several professional attorneys, the Condit family ended up representing itself in the appeal to the 9th Circuit. Condit's son Chad handwrote the appeal, but among other shortcomings he missed filing deadlines.

"Appellants rely on the postal system to be informed about court proceedings and did not receive the schedule set by this court. In fact, appellants learned of their missed obligations with this court through media accounts," Chad Condit wrote June 18 on lined paper.

The missed deadlines nonetheless enabled appellate judges Mary Schroeder, Andrew Kleinfeld and Milan Smith Jr. to reject the appeal in just a few sentences.

The Condits could now be on the hook for more than $100,000 in damages and attorney fees.

This is what happens in a strip search, as conducted by U.S. deputy marshals in Washington, D.C.:

"Colloquially referred to as the “Drop, Squat and Cough,” male arrestees were required to pull their pants and underwear down to their ankles, squat down or bend over with their buttocks to the searching Marshals, and then cough to confirm that they were not hiding any contraband and/or weapons in their rectums."

The description comes courtesy of U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who on Tuesday declined to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Paul Bame, Gregory Keltner and other protesters arrested following non-violent 2002 demonstrations targeting the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. Bame and his allies contend the searches were unreasonable, a violation of the 14th Amendment.

The demonstrators, whose original lawsuit was filed by Zachary Wolfe of the People's Law Resource Center, haven't won yet. Judge Collyer's refusal to dismiss the case, though, comes replete with hints that the plaintiffs' arguments are finding a sympathetic audience. As the judge noted, various appellate circuits "for nearly twenty-five years, required at least reasonable suspicion to strip search a pre-trial or prearraignment arrestee charged with a non-violent, non-drug crime."

Added the judge, tellingly:

"Strip searching under these circumstances is not reasonable without some justification...That justification is not found in the nature or seriousness of the crime charged (non-violent, non-felony violations), not found in the characteristics of the arrestees, and not found in the circumstances of the particular arrests at issue."

Let the settlement negotiations begin.

Georgia prison inmate George A. Brown defines the meaning of the term 'frequent filer.' Now, it's going to cost him.

Fed up by his frivolous lawsuits, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has now cast Mr. Brown into that special category of would-be litigants: those not permitted to file new cases without the court's explicit prior permission. Judge Marian Blank Horn disciplined Mr. Brown as a result of his latest suit, in which he named as defendants, among others:

"President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, the United States Department of Justice, former President George W. Bush, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former United States Attorney Richard S. Thompson, the United States Supreme Court, the United States Senate, and the United States House of Representatives."

Now incarcerated in the Wheeler Correctional Facility, Mr. Brown claims that he reported criminal activity to the various named federal officials. They declined to investigate. The judge, though, characterized his "lengthy, rambling" complaint -- one of at least eight known to be filed the inmate -- as hard to follow and in any even without apparent merit.

LilliAnn Williams-Jackson did her civic duty, and for that she paid a price. She did win a judge's sympathy and respect, but that won't pay the bills.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer kindly but firmly rejected Williams-Jackson's lawsuit against her former employers at the District of Columbia schools.The first tip-off that this is an unusual case is the judge's use of a narrative flourish -- a rhetorical question -- in the opinion's opening paragraph. States the judge:

"Everyone knows that a juror’s job is protected during her absence, right?"

OK, Suits & Sentences is hooked.

An elementary school counselor with a doctorate from Michigan State, Williams-Jackson served over four months on a jury. From the start, it seemed, her school principal, a Ms. Cheryl Warley, seemed resentful of her absence. The judge noted:

"Ms. Warley also called this Court’s Jury Office to find out if Dr. Jackson were really on jury duty and, if so, why was it taking so long. This conduct sank to a very petty level when Ms. Warley told Dr. Jackson that she could no longer store her purse in the school office, which, without a locked cabinet in her office, Dr. Jackson had been doing for twelve or thirteen years."

Judge Collyer characterized Warley as a "very unconvincing witness" who "could not recall important facts" and who showed "palpable" antagonism toward Williams-Jackson. Nonetheless, after having "wrestled with this case for much longer than it wished because of the credibility differences between Dr. Jackson and Ms. Warley," Judge Collyer concluded she could not agree with Williams-Jackson's notion that her jury duty was the definitive reason for her being let go by the school.

And you thought your last trip to the DMV went poorly.

Andrew J. Marcus had an errand to run at the Department of Motor Vehicles' office in the District of Columbia. He ended up bruised and in jail. A lawsuit partially dismissed this week explains.

On Nov. 7, 2007, Mr. Marcus showed up at Metropolitan Police Department headquarters, located at 301 C. Street, NW. Thereupon, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon narrated:

"When Marcus arrived, he approached the security table and told two privately employed security guards... that he was looking for the DMV. One of the two security guards informed Marcus that he was in fact at MPD headquarters, and not the DMV, at which point Marcus said 'that moron at the DMV sent me here.'"

Marcus says he then asked to talk to the guards' supervisor. Then, "according to Marcus, the guard became rather angry at this request, refused to divulge the name of his supervisor, shoved Marcus's briefcase and coat back into Marcus's arms, and told Marcus to leave. When Marcus didn't comply, the Guard allegedly restrained him by force after spinning him around and pushing him once again."

At which point, some police officers showed up. Marcus says he was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and held in custody, in various city lock-ups, for a total of 28 hours. In his ruling this week, Judge Leon dismissed some of Marcus's claims against several specific police officers; in part, because they appeared to have acted reasonably based on what they saw when they arrived at the scene.

That business about justice delayed being justice denied apparently has a statute of limitations. At least, that must be the way it seems for Marco A. Bush, a former private first class in the Marine Corps.

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces rejected Mr. Bush's claims that his rights for speedy post-trial review were violated. And just how un-speedy was that review?

More than seven years. More than seven years passed from Mr. Bush's 2000 court martial on myriad charges to the time his appeal was docketed in 2007 by the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. There is, of course, an explanation. As spelled out in the new opinion:

"The record was 'apparently lost in the mail for over six years.'"

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, for reasons best read in their entirety, acknowledged that the seven-year delay was "unreasonable on its face," but nonetheless concluded that "the record is bereft of any evidence of prejudice to Bush as a result of the delay."

Bereft, indeed.

A gruesome case has reminded Suits & Sentences, an admittedly slow legal affairs blog, of something important: The 14th Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia.

Well, this surprise shows why Suits & Sentences is not a fancy pants lawyer. But here are the facts, enumerated in the newly decided case, Person v. District of Columbia. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina dismissed the claims of a Mr. William Person.

Long story short: A D.C. Jail inmate, Mr. Person fractured his leg in October 2003. His pain kept worsening and he kept complaining, literally begging for a doctor. Instead, a nurse gave him Tylenol. Judge Urbina states matter-of-factly: 

"Yet, in spite of repeated requests for medical assistance above and beyond the pain medication being provided, the nurses remained unresponsive...The plaintiff subsequently underwent an amputation of his lower leg as it had become gangrenous."

 Nonetheless, the District argued that Person's 14th Amendment claim could not apply because the Amendment "applies only to states and not to the District." Person did not respond to this argument, so it was considered to be conceded. Other aspects of the claim likewise fell.

OK, Suits & Sentences understands that the 14th Amendment applies constitutional due process protections to the states. The District of Columbia is a federal jurisdiction. So, just wondering: why wouldn't Person have filed his claim under the 4th Amendment and thereby reach the federal jurisdiction?

Some lawsuits speak for themselves.

A Mr. Douglas McLaren demanded that the CIA pay him $4.7 trillion in damages. That's trillion, with a 'T.' Mr. McLaren explained in his four-page suit that the intelligence agency had subjected him to, among other things:

"Religious persecution, political persecution, difirmation [sic], slander, criminal slander, discrim[in]ation, racism, reverse racism discrim[in]ation. Sexual harassment harassment, invasion of privacy invasion criminal invasion of privacy violation of domain, to violations of sovereign domain. Invasion of domain of
legal filings, retal[ia]tory acts. Interference with legal filings ...."

On Thursday, citing among other reasons the lawsuit's "incoherent phrases and terms," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton dismissed the claim.