In re Jussi K. KIVISTO, a United States Citizen, Petitioner
No. 12-14118
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
June 10, 2013
Non-Argument Calendar
On the facts of this case, there is no logical or evidentiary connection between Thomas‘s false exculpatory statement and the believability of Levatte and Harris. Thomas‘s statement suggested only that she was not being truthful in the holding cell, but that fact, even if proven, has no bearing on Levatte and Harris‘s credibility. Thomas has pointed to no aspect of defense counsel‘s trial strategy or evidentiary presentation that would have been different absent the admission of her statement from the holding cell. Cf. Hart, 323 F.3d at 895 (holding Miranda error prejudicial, in part, because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements). As a result, Thomas cannot show defense counsel was affected by the improper admission of her false statements.
All relevant considerations counsel in favor of upholding Thomas‘s convictions. The admission of Thomas‘s false statement was undoubtedly error, but it was also undoubtedly harmless. We have no difficulty concluding it is beyond a reasonable doubt the improperly admitted statement did not contribute to the jury‘s verdict finding Thomas guilty as charged. See Arbolaez, 450 F.3d at 1293.
III. CONCLUSION
The district court erred in denying Thomas‘s motion to suppress. However, in light of all evidence in the record, the court‘s error was harmless. The district court‘s ruling and Thomas‘s convictions are AFFIRMED.
Mary Hope Keating, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Tallahassee, FL, for Respondent.
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jussi K. Kivisto appeals the denial of his application to subpoena Michael Soifer, counsel for the Florida Bar, for discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding involving Kivisto‘s right to engage in the practice of law in Canada.
Susan Robbins, a private attorney, filed a complaint with the Bar alleging that Kivisto had demanded exorbitant fees for his work for an estate; had a conflict of interest in representing a second estate that had inherited money from the first estate; and had committed Medicaid fraud. The Bar dismissed the charge of Medicaid fraud, but a referee recommended disbarring Kivisto for charging excessive fees and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty and fraud and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. During the disbarment proceedings, Kivisto “submitted over 120 filings with [the Supreme Court of Florida], the bulk of which were repetitive and meritless.” The Florida Bar v. Kivisto, 62 So.3d 1137, 1138 (Fla.2011).
After he petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review of the referee‘s report, Kivisto failed to file a timely brief in support of his petition. Id. The court granted Kivisto additional time to file his brief, but he continued to file motions and other papers “in an attempt to delay the progress of his disciplinary case.” Id. Kivisto failed to file a brief within the additional time provided, and the court treated the referee‘s report as uncontested and disbarred Kivisto. The Florida Bar v. Kivisto, 49 So.3d 747 (Fla.2010). Later, the court issued an order for Kivisto to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for his repetitive filings. Kivisto, 62 So.3d at 1139. After Kivisto responded with “arguments regarding [his] disciplinary case,” the court sanctioned Kivisto by refusing to accept any future filings except those signed by a member in good standing with the Bar. Id. at 1139-40.
Kivisto filed in the district court a complaint that Soifer, Robbins, and other attorneys had violated his civil rights,
In 2012, Kivisto applied for an order to subpoena Soifer. Kivisto alleged that Soifer, as counsel for the Florida Bar, possessed evidence that he, Susan Robbins, Robbins‘s law firm, and other attorneys conspired to “file[] with the Florida Bar ... a knowingly false grievance ... accusing [Kivisto] of Medicaid fraud ... to extort money” from him; covered up the “attempted extortion“; and fabricated evidence to “frame” Kivisto for professional misconduct. Kivisto attached to his brief a copy of a letter from the Canadian Law Society dated December 10, 2010, stating that it had received notice of Kivisto‘s disbarment and was “considering its course of action“; inquiring whether Kivisto “intend[ed] to resume the practice of law in Ontario” because he had been inactive since 1997; and requesting information about the status of his disbarment in Florida and his licensure in other jurisdictions. Kivisto also filed a document provided by the Society that explained its investigative process.
The district court denied Kivisto‘s application on the ground it “[had] been made in bad faith, as a fishing expedition, or as a means to harass Soifer.” The district court found that Kivisto was “continu[ing] to drag out litigation that he [had] already lost and [had] continued to lose for years,” and the court “exercise[d] its discretion to prevent him from disguising more litigation under the pretext of additional discovery....” The district court “note[d] that the Canadian bar association considering Kivisto‘s disbarment remain[ed] free under
We review the denial of an application for discovery in a foreign proceeding for abuse of discretion. In re Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones S.A. v. JAS Forwarding (USA), Inc., 685 F.3d 987, 993 (11th Cir.2012). Under that standard, “our review ... is extremely limited and highly deferential.” United Kingdom v. United States, 238 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir.2001). A district court has the authority to grant an application for discovery if the applicant satisfies statutory requirements,
The district court did not abuse its broad discretion by denying Kivisto‘s application for discovery. Kivisto failed to establish that the requested discovery would be useful to or accepted by the Canadian Law Society. Neither Kivisto‘s application nor his filings suggested that
We AFFIRM the denial of Kivisto‘s application for discovery in aid of a foreign proceeding.