Showing 1 - 5 of 5 results
United States v. Warda
Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.
Argument: [T]his case raises fundamental constitutional issues implicating Appellant’s right to have his Fifth Amendment right to Brady material and his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in securing evidence from MAB’s [the complainant] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] Alien File [A-File] produced for an in camera judicial review. That was necessary to protect Appellant’s right to confront his accuser, to include impeaching her at trial. Finally, this case implicates Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. NACDL is not alleging ineffective assistance of counsel [IAC], but rather that Appellant’s Trial Defense Counsel [TDC] was improperly thwarted by the government’s opposing his request for an immigration law expert to assist the defense, which the military judge denied, as well as access to her A-File.
New Jersey v. Arteaga
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendant-Appellant.
Argument: In this case of first impression, appellant argues that information about the technology and procedures underlying a facial recognition search must be disclosed to the defendant to cure the risk of misidentification and in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, even if the result of the search was used only investigatively, subject to later corroboration, and not admitted into evidence. The amicus brief explains the numerous opportunities for error present in the facial recognition process, and how error in that process determines the course of the investigation and results in racially disparate and otherwise wrongful arrests. NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center has been working to better understand how defendants’ due process rights are impacted by the growing use of facial recognition technology and to equip defense attorneys with the knowledge and tools to combat resulting Brady violations.
Blankenship v. United States
Brief of Amicus Curiae for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: This case raises a question of fundamental importance to our criminal justice system. The circuits are split down the middle with respect to whether Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny impose affirmative obligations on criminal defendants to seek out exculpatory evidence from other sources even when the government already possesses the evidence in question. This dispute has created uncertainty about the scope of Brady's protections and has imposed investigatory obligations on some criminal defendants while imposing no such obligations on others. And it raises fundamental questions about the nature of our criminal justice system and the Constitution more broadly. These questions deserve this Court's immediate attention.
Smith v. Maryland
Brief in Support of Appellant of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and the Innocence Network.
Argument: NACDL’s amicus brief argues that the State’s misconduct in this case was truly startling; indeed, it is among the most serious examples of prosecutorial misconduct in amici’s collective experience. The record shows that the prosecution: (1) suppressed “a fountain of favorable evidence from the defense”; (2) “[s]ponsored dubious claims from a credibility-ravaged witness who tainted every other prosecution witness”; (3) “made serial false representations to the defense, to jurors, and to the trial court about critical exculpatory evidence”; and (4) testified falsely under oath to hide its misconduct. This misconduct was an attempt to shore up a weak case in which there was no physical evidence to link Mr. Smith or his co-defendants to the crime, and there was physical evidence that pointed away from them. Authority from jurisdictions throughout the country supports the dismissal of the indictment under these circumstances. Prosecutorial conduct that is “so grossly shocking and outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice” requires dismissal of a resulting prosecution on due process grounds. A case also can be dismissed under a court’s supervisory powers even if “the conduct does not rise to the level of a due process violation.” The egregious misconduct found by the court of appeals satisfies either standard. Retrial would not adequately address the egregious misconduct that occurred in this case because (1) the extensive misconduct here was unusually extreme and shocks the conscience, and it created pervasive prejudice that would prevent Mr. Smith from receiving a fair retrial, and (2) any remedy short of dismissal would be inadequate to deter the type of intentional, willful, and reckless misconduct that the court of appeals recognized and the State now admits. While dismissal is an extreme remedy, courts have invoked it regularly in cases with extreme facts of the type found here.
Faulkner and Smith v. Maryland
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.