Brief filed: 05/09/2016
Hebert v. United States
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 15-1190
Case below 813 F.3d 551 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2015).
In 2007, the Supreme Court in Rita v. United States declined to consider the hypothetical issue of whether judicial factfinding may justify an otherwise unreasonable sentence. This case presents the best possible concrete version of Rita's hypothetical. The Court should grant review to determine whether it was permissible for the district court to impose a 92-year sentence for a non-violent fraud with a Guidelines range of under five years, based solely on a judicial finding that petitioner committed a "heinous" murder. And for the reasons further detailed in the petition, the Court should also conclude that this sentence violated petitioner's right to a jury trial under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Court should grant the petition for a writ of certiorari in this case.
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.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Clifford M. Sloan, David W. Foster, Geoffrey M. Wyatt, and John J. Schoettle, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan Hacker, Washington, DC.