Brief filed: 06/05/2017
Hill v. Mitchell
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 16-9016
The Sixth Circuit’s new relation back standard erects an arbitrary barrier to the amendment of Brady claims. It is irreconcilable with the language of Rule 15, its purpose, this Court’s decision in Mayle v. Felix, the standard applied in civil litigation, and the standards applied in other circuits. Given the grave threat to the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice process, and the importance of consistent application of the Federal Rules, this Court should grant the petition and clarify a uniform standard for Rule 15’s relation back provision. The State acknowledged that it suppressed exculpatory evidence in Mr. Hill’s case. And the case arises in Hamilton County, Ohio, where a long history of Brady violations has been well-documented and is beyond dispute. The district court judge and two of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel agreed that Mr. Hill’s Brady claim could succeed on the merits. It was the majority’s new interpretation of Rule 15 that barred his claim. Because this case offers the Court a clean shot at resolving a question of great importance that divides the lower courts, the petition should be granted.
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
Jeffrey T. Green, Naomi Igra, and Stephen Chang, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC; David M. Porter, NACDL, Washington, DC.