Brief filed: 05/09/2016
Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois
United States Supreme Court; Case No. 14-9496
Decision below No. 14-1581 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2015).
The Fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable pretrial seizures, even after initiation of legal process. Decades of experience confirm that recognizing malicious prosecution claims based on the Fourth Amendment does not chill legitimate law enforcement conduct. This Court can provide direction to lower courts by clarifying that malice is not an element of a § 1983 claim grounded on the Fourth Amendment and by adopting Justice Ginsburg's view of continuing seizure.
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
John P. Elwood and Joshua S. Johnson, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Washington, DC; David T. Goldberg, Donahue & Goldberg, LLP, New York, NY; Daniel R. Ortiz, University of Virginia School of Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Charlottesville, VA; Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, DC.