Mission statement, protocols, and roster for NACDL's amicus curiae program

Brief of Amici Curiae The American Civil Liberties Union, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey

Argument: The state violates the Fourth Amendment and article 1, paragraph 7 when it obtains access to an incarcerated person’s recorded telephone conversations without a warrant. Jackson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the calls he made to his mother from jail. Jackson did not forfeit all privacy rights in his telephone conversations by exposing them to jail staff for security monitoring purposes. Jackson did not consent to the State accessing his calls for its use in his prosecution. Requiring prosecutors to secure warrants in order to access jail calls is the only adequate way to protect the constitutional and policy interests the calls implicate.

Brief of Amici Curiae The American Civil Liberties Union, The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and The Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey

Argument: The state violates the Fourth Amendment and article 1, paragraph 7 when it obtains access to an incarcerated person’s recorded telephone conversations without a warrant. Jackson had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the calls he made to his mother from jail. Jackson did not forfeit all privacy rights in his telephone conversations by exposing them to jail staff for security monitoring purposes. Jackson did not consent to the State accessing his calls for its use in his prosecution. Requiring prosecutors to secure warrants in order to access jail calls is the only adequate way to protect the constitutional and policy interests the calls implicate.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers provides amicus assistance on the federal and state level in those cases that present issues of importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and the criminal justice system as a whole. A selection of NACDL's amicus briefs that address the Fourth Amendment are offered below. 

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Argument: Over 200 years ago, this Court declared that there are no federal common law crimes. Although that rule remains in place, the intervening years have witnessed the creation of quasi-common law crimes. These are crimes that rest on statutory terms so broad and indefinite that courts are left to define the elements of the offense with little or no guidance from the statutory text. Quasi-common law crimes shift the task of defining what conduct deserves "the moral condemnation of the community" from the legislature, where it belongs, to the courts. This Court has sought to remedy the lack of fair warning inherent in quasi-common law crimes through a process of interpretation that often resembles common law crime definition. Insider trading liability--and, in particular, the liability of tippers and tippees at issue here—has followed the same pattern. In the tipper/tippee insider trading context, therefore--as in the antitrust and honest services contexts--the Court, rather than Congress, has determined the elements of the crime. And as in those contexts, a person seeking to conform his conduct to the law when trading on a tip of nonpublic information will learn virtually nothing from the statutory text. He must turn instead to Dirks' "simple and clear 'guiding principle' for determining tippee liability" and act accordingly. The Court's definition of these and other quasi-common law crimes--its creation of "simple and clear guiding principle[s]" for determining whether an offense has been committed--ameliorates (but does not eliminate) the fair warning danger such crimes present. But the Court's decisions perform that function only if the lower courts treat their operative language as if Congress had included that language in the statute itself. If lower courts can modify the Court's "guiding principles" materially, as the court of appeals did here, and thus broaden the scope of criminal liability, then the lack of fair warning inherent in quasi-common law crimes will remain. It is therefore essential to individual liberty that the Court rigorously police the lower courts' application of its decisions defining quasi-common law crimes. The need for the Court's intervention is particularly acute here, because the court of appeals endorsed an expansion of the tipper/tippee insider trading crime that the Court declined to adopt in Salman.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner and Supporting Reversal.

Argument: In deciding when to impose a “strike,” Congress incorporated the well-established merits-based distinction between a with-prejudice dismissal and a without-prejudice dismissal. Treating a dismissal without prejudice as a strike undermines the Judiciary’s inherent equitable power to leave the courthouse doors open to meritorious claims brought by indigent prisoners. Treating a without-prejudice dismissal as a strike penalizes poor prisoners for proceedings pro se and stifles meritorious claims.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioners (on petition for a writ of certiorari).

Argument: The legislative history of the Sherman Act strongly supports the petition in this case. That history shows that the framers of the Sherman Act intended for juries to decide whether any particular contract or combination was in restraint of trade. Furthermore, the need for this Court to answer the question presented is particularly pressing because the government is bringing increasing numbers of criminal antitrust prosecutions, and persistent calls for still more aggressive enforcement indicate that those numbers will rise even further.

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellants.

Argument: The courts below committed legal error in not considering the State’s affirmative obligations to disclose exculpatory evidence. The State’s duty to disclose exculpatory information necessarily informs defense counsel’s diligence obligations. The defense was entitled to rely on the State’s open-file policy. The Circuit Court abused its discretion by not considering some of the most probative evidence regarding defense counsel’s diligence in regards to the Keene Statement.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, and American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California in Support of the Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: The panel decision failed to recognize that the Fourth Amendment plainly prohibits police officers from stealing private property for personal gain. The Fourth Amendment was designed in part to prohibit the Colonial Era practice of officers stealing private property. Case law confirms that the Fourth Amendment prohibits officers from stealing private property while executing a warrant. Rehearing is necessary to prevent immunizing serious law enforcement abuses.

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Appellee.

Argument: The circuit court correctly concluded that the video recordings should have been suppressed because the State failed to follow minimization requirements. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from unreasonably intruding in citizens’ privacy. Here, the government recorded citizens over the course of several days in a day spa, where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The circuit court correctly found that the evidence should be suppressed here. Amici write to emphasize the unprecedented scope of the surveillance, as well as the importance of suppression here to protect the rights of both defendants and uncharged third parties. Traditionally, the remedy for an unconstitutional search would be suppression in a criminal trial. However, because some of the conduct surreptitiously recorded was perfectly legal, not everybody who was recorded has been charged with a crime. Furthermore, those third parties’ only recourse would be the possibility of a civil suit, which is costly. Indeed, suppression here is essentially the only way to deter the State from engaging in mass surveillance, knowing that many citizens would have little to no recourse. Any other result would encourage an “ends justify the means” approach that this Court has cautioned against.

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners.

Argument: The dramatic impact that Marsy’s Law would have on Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system is not mere speculation. Other states have adopted nearly identically vague and broad constitutional amendments, which have resulted in substantial harm not only to criminal defendants, but also to the administration of the criminal justice system. This amicus brief summarizes the substantial burden’s that Marsy’s Law has imposed in other states where it has gone into effect. The right “to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct” has cost counties and states millions of dollars and congested court dockets. Marsy’s Law states have struggled to deal with the financial impact of the notice provision. The docket congestion caused by the notice provision has caused intolerable delays in proceedings. The right “to reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused” has led to absurd results in pretrial release decisions. The right to “full and timely restitution” will take money from the courts. The codification of “respect for the victim’s…privacy” and the right “to reasonable protection from the accused” has made it more difficult for law enforcement to solve crime and left the public lacking critical information about criminal activity.

Brief of Amici Curiae Prison Law Office, American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Nevada, Ethics Bureau at Yale, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National Juvenile Defender Center in Support of Plaintiff-Appellant and in Support of Reversal.

Argument: Nevada Department of Correction (NDOC) staff’s acts of listening to confidential legal calls burden attorneys’ First Amendment Rights. NDOC staff’s practice of listening to legal calls impairs attorneys’ duty to communicate and keep clients reasonably informed. NDOC staff’s actions prevent attorneys from complying with their ethical duty of confidentiality. NDOC staff’s actions prevent attorneys from complying with their ethical duties of competent and diligent representation.

Brief of Amici Curiae Due Process institute, Cato Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Rutherford Institute, District of Columbia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and Law Professors in Support Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Argument: The standard-of-review question this case presents implicates profound concerns with federal sentencing--concerns with substantial constitutional implications. Federal courts routinely sentence defendants to years in prison based on hearsay statements relayed to the court at sentencing by law enforcement officers. Those statements often come from convicted criminals who want to reduce their sentences by cooperating with the government. The cooperating criminals do not appear in court, so the district judge has no opportunity to assess their demeanor. They do not swear an oath to tell the truth. They do not face cross-examination. And their out-of-court statements need only persuade the judge by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner Beltran Leyva faces a life sentence based on precisely such evidence. Defendants have few safeguards against sentencing enhancements that rest on false out-of-court statements from cooperating criminals. One such protection is searching appellate review. De novo review by the court of appeals ensures that the reliability of the cooperator's statement will receive a second level of careful scrutiny. And de novo review comports with the rationale for heightened appellate scrutiny: the stakes--a person's right to due process of law before losing his liberty--are high, and, because the district court never observes the cooperator's demeanor, the appellate court is just as capable of evaluating his credibility.

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Urging Reversal. 

Argument: Without disclosure of the underlying FISA materials, it is impossible to argue under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154(1978), that the application contains material misstatements or omissions, and courts have no means of conducting the investigation necessary to make that determination themselves. Without disclosure, defendants cannot argue concretely that the government did not properly minimize the fruits of the surveillance, or that the government did not satisfy the requirement that it exhaust other, less intrusive investigative techniques before turning to FISA. Nor can defendants counter government arguments (typically presented ex parte under § 4 of the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), 18 U.S.C. App. 3 § 4) that the fruits of particular surveillance techniques are too attenuated from the trial evidence to require disclosure. And without notice of particular surveillance techniques that the government used, a defendant cannot argue that, under the circumstances of the case, those techniques violate the Fourth Amendment or another constitutional or statutory protection. As appellant argues, Congress never intended FISA litigation to occur entirely ex parte. Courts have misinterpreted 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), the statute's disclosure provision. And as we discuss below, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause for bids such a secret, one-sided process, under which defendants are routinely denied the information necessary to challenge the lawfulness of government surveillance. No other aspect of criminal law functions entirely in secret; search warrants and Title III wiretap orders are issued ex parte, but after indictment a defendant gets access to the warrant or order and supporting application and a full and fair opportunity to challenge both. It is past time for FISA litigation to meet the standard of fairness that is the hallmark of American law.

Amicus briefs filed on behalf of NACDL in white collar cases, sorted reverse-chronologically