United States of America v. Gabadadze
Brief Details
- Case No.: 25-1294
- Brief Filed: February 09, 2026
- Jurisdiction: 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Key Topics in the Brief
Briefs
Criminal defendants face the specter of a steep penalty should they elect to exercise their constitutional right to a jury trial. Because of the gulf between sentences imposed after a guilty plea versus those imposed after trial, few rational defendants can afford to hold the government to its constitutionally mandated burden to prove their guilt by competent evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury of their peers. This penalty—the enhanced punishment a defendant faces for exercising fundamental constitutional rights—has led to the virtual disappearance of the federal jury trial. This has undermined the integrity of the federal criminal system, rendering it less just, less transparent, and more prone to error. Troublingly, this modern development also has shifted the democratic balance of power in a way the Founders did not envision. While plea bargaining is now an entrenched part of the criminal justice system, the Constitution does not permit sentencing provisions that punish or improperly chill defendants’ exercise of their fundamental trial rights. Here, the district court correctly identified U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) as one such provision and held it unconstitutional. This holding, and the district court’s judgment, should be affirmed.
Author(s)
Lindsay A. Lewis, Vice Chair, Amicus Curiae Committee, NACDL, New York, NY; Kendra L. Hutchinson and Sarah Baumgartel, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY
