Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Reversal

Argument: The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and of Evidence work together to ensure that a criminal defendant can confront and challenge an expert witness proffered by the prosecution. Rule 16 requires the prosecution to timely disclose the identity of an expert witness, and the basis for that expert’s testimony, sufficiently before trial to permit a criminal defendant to mount a complete defense. And the rules of evidence—in particular, Rules 701 and 702—ensure that an expert’s testimony is based on reliable, verifiable data that can be the subject of rigorous cross-examination. In this prosecution, the defendant, Elizabeth Holmes, was robbed of the protections of these rules. The government disclosed a lay-turned-expert witness—on the critical question of whether Theranos technology worked— on the eve of trial, years after the Rule 16 deadline had passed. Worse, that expert testimony relied upon data that no longer existed, meaning it was neither reliable nor verifiable, and could not be the subject of meaningful crossexamination or responsive testimony. This sleight of hand is, regrettably, common. The government has previously “subvert[ed] the requirements” of the federal rules, and “blur[r]ed the distinction between” expert and lay testimony. United States v. Figueroa-Lopez, 125 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 1997). It also frequently discloses expert witnesses way beyond the deadlines set forth in Rule 16. See United States v. Yagi, 2013 WL 10570994, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013); United States v. Cerna, 2010 WL 2347406, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2010). This appeal is an opportunity to call the government to account for these harmful practices.

Amended Order Granting Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment

Argument: Compassionate Release granted for a stacked 924(c) client. “Based on Walden’s seemingly exceptional personal growth, the severity of his Sentence relative to [his cofedendant]’s and modern sentencing laws, and his age and criminal history at the time of the offenses, the Court concludes that Walden has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons that could justify reducing the Sentence…The Court thus concludes that requiring Walden to remain in prison pursuant to the Sentence until 2056 would not accomplish the objectives identified by Congress in § 3553.”

Order granting motion for compassionate release.

Argument: Anthony Jones pleaded guilty to several counts, including five 924(c) counts. He was sentenced to 357 months, which the court reduced to time served in granting his motion, a total reduction of 15 months.

On retroactivity:  “It cannot be denied that FSA § 403reflects a “legislative rejection” of stacking and a “legislative declaration of what level of punishment is adequate” for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Redd, 444 F.Supp.3d at 723-24. Though the statute did not provide automatic relief to defendants like Mr. Jones, it has in no uncertain terms established that sentences like Mr. Jones's “unfair and unnecessary.” Id.”

On finality of sentencing:

“The Court likewise rejects the Government's objection that reducing a defendant's sentence based on subsequent legal changes would “undermine the finality of sentences.” Opp. at 9. Although “the principle of finality” is indisputably “essential to the operation of our criminal justice system,” Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), it is not without exceptions. As the Ninth Circuit has explained, sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) are “acts of lenity”; as such, they “are not constrained by the general policies underlying initial sentencing or even plenary resentencing proceedings.” United States v. Padilla-Diaz, 862 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2017). In other words, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) represents Congress's judgment that the generic interest in finality must give way in certain individual cases.”

Order granting motion for compassionate release. 

Argument: Ivy Gaines was found guilty on 18 counts, including 8 924(c) counts, and sentenced to 182 years. Judge Zilly granted the motion for reduction at the re-sentencing hearing on Feb. 4^th reducing the sentence to a total of 20 years, “close to time served.” In the sentencing transcript. Judge Zilly notes that:

“some of the recommendations and some of the positions the U.S. Attorney’s Office has taken in this case are troubling.” As well as this: “a sentence of 182 years, 56 years, or even 30 years, in my opinion, doe not give respect for the law. These sentences are far greater and typically given for more serious crimes. You could murder someone in the State of Washington, or in a federal jurisdiction where they have federal law, and you probably wouldn’t get a 56-year sentence.”

Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Granting Motion for Compassionate Release 

Argument: From the Western District of Washington, granting release to a vaccinated client.  The court found that after vaccination, "[r]isk appears to remain, but it is reduced to an unknown degree.  The Court’s conclusion is that vaccination during the pendency of the Motion for Compassionate Release should not, and does not, in some way trump the Court’s consideration of the motion." 

Order Granting Compassionate Release 

Argument: Order granting release to a client who had contracted COVID-19 and received one dose of the vaccine.

Emergency Motion for Compassionate Release (Dec. 23, 2020)

Reply Supporting Compassionate Release (Jan 8, 2021)

Argument: Arguing that a vaccine in the near future isn’t soon enough for a client with obesity and high blood pressure, as well as arguing that clients with obesity are still at risk despite the vaccine, citing research on other vaccines indicating that, in general, vaccines are less effective on people with obesity.

Reply Supporting Compassionate Release in U.S. v Casas

Argument: Via the Federal Defenders, a reply brief for a vaccinated client, arguing that the vaccine is not "a silver bullet" in all cases.

Amicus Brief

Argument: Amicus brief filed on behalf of compassionate release motion discussing the over-criminization of marijuana; the significant changes in marijuana laws over the years, and arguing that incarceration of non-violent cannabis offenders fails to serve the public interest.  

Brief Of Amici Curiae The Dkt Liberty Project, The Cato Institute, Collateral Consequences Resource Center, Clause 40 Foundation, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, The Macarthur Justice Center, The R Street Institute, The Sentencing Project, And The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Argument: State licensing schemes that categorically bar individuals with prior criminal convictions from holding various professions are irrational. Across the country, these licensing schemes cover almost every profession imaginable. However, these regulations frequently do nothing other than bar those with criminal records from entering a profession. These regulations prevent those with felony convictions from, among other things, operating a taxicab, performing marriages, and working as a tag officer at a state department of motor vehicles. This is true regardless of whether the individual has been convicted of a major fraud, a violent crime, or something as minor as felony littering. States regularly impose criminal-history restrictions on occupational licenses that are entirely unrelated to the applicant’s fitness to be a contributing member to the profession. And these restrictions—which bar individuals with prior convictions from finding gainful employment—contribute to recidivism, further underscoring their irrationality. Although courts have held that these licensing schemes are subject to only rational basis review, rational basis is not a toothless standard; it requires that a court find some logical relationship between the restriction—here, two felony convictions—and the occupation being regulated—here, emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”). Courts historically have been critical of, and have struck down under this test, broad regulatory schemes that bar membership of an applicant who has any felony conviction. Because California’s regulatory scheme bars individuals convicted of any two felonies without regard for whether the crimes at issue implicate the applicant’s fitness to become an EMT, including to fight fires, this scheme likewise fails rational basis review. As a result, this Court should vacate the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss and remand this case for further proceedings.

Brief Amici Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies in Support of Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. 

Argument: In violation of his constitutional rights guaranteeing notice, due process, and trial by jury, Melvyn Gear was convicted of possessing a firearm while holding a non-immigrant visa because the jury was not instructed on that most subjective of the crime’s elements:  knowing possession.  Contrary to four circuits around the country, the Ninth Circuit panel applied a cramped and compressed plain error standard that failed to properly protect the surpassing constitutional rights at stake. The brief amici was filed to bring those decisions and their reasoning to the Ninth Circuit’s attention.