Brief filed: 05/19/2017
Documents
Class v. United States
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 16-424
Prior Decision
On petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Case No. 15-3015, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:13-cr-00253-1
Question Presented
Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant's right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction.
Argument(s)
Amici seek the Court’s confirmation of the Menna-Blackledge default rule under which a defendant’s right to appellate review of a claim that a statute is unconstitutional is not waived sub silentio through an unconditional guilty plea. The Menna-Blackledge doctrine serves the public interest in testing the constitutionality of criminal statutes. Plea bargaining dominates the criminal justice system. Post-plea challenges to unconstitutional statutes are important. The government's proposed alternatives are no substitute for direct appeal. Rule 11(a)(2) does not provide a meaningful alternative to direct appeal. Collateral review is no substitute for direct appeal under Menna and Blackledge.
Featured Products
-
Pattern Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses: A Trial Strategy & Resource Guide
In a criminal trial, cross-examination of the prosecution’s forensic expert may make the difference between victory or defeat.
-
2020 Sample Motions Collection Update
NACDL’s 2020 Sample Motions Collection is the follow-up to our wildly popular 2019 Sample Motions Collection and contains the newest and most recent additions to our ever-expanding Sample Motions library.
-
State v. Stone - A Case Study on Child Sexual Molestation & Sexual Battery
The criminal defense attorney tasked with defending such a case has to be prepared to not only show reasonable doubt, but to answer this question: If it did not happen, how is it that the child believes it did happen?
-
POZNER ON CROSS: Advanced Cross of Experts & Officers in DUI Cases
It’s not your strong opening argument. It’s not how many of your impassioned objections the judge sustains. It’s not even how you tie your theory of the case together with a dazzling closing statement bow. What wins your trial is your cross.
Author(s)
Daniel N. Lerman and Kathleen Shen, Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP, Washington, DC; Ruthanne M. Deutsch and Hyland Hunt, Deutsch Hunt PLLC, Washington, DC; Jonathan Hacker, NACDL, Washington, DC.