Amicus Curiae Brief of the Petitioner, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Real Party in Interest.
 

Argument: NACDL, as amicus curiae, submits that Article 52(a)(3), UCMJ, which authorizes non-unanimous verdicts by three-fourths of the voting members in a courtmartial for serious offenses, is unconstitutional on its face. First, military law has long recognized that a military accused has a right to “a fair and impartial panel” which is “a matter of due process” under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Wiesen, 56 M.J. 172, 174 (CAAF 2001). That is because “[i]mpartial court members are the sine qua non for a fair court-martial.” United States v. Modesto, 43 M.J. 315, 318 (CAAF 1995).

Jury Instruction Corner Thomas Lundy

Executive Director Norman Reimer's letter to the Ohio House Judiciary Committee regarding a proposal to eliminate the civil forfeiture process and rely only on criminal forfeiture and its requirements (HB 347, 2015).

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Letter to members of the Judicial Conference regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chairs E.E. (Bo) Edwards, David B. Smith, and Richard Troberman's written statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Kenneth Robinson’s case is a quintessential example of why people plead guilty under the threat of a trial tax. Kenneth withstood the immense pressure to plead guilty. A child of only fifteen, charged with murder under the “hand of one, hand of all” doctrine, he exercised his right to a jury trial, foregoing a twenty-three-year offer to plea to manslaughter. He refused to relinquish his right to appeal, foregoing a thirty-year plea offer following guilty verdicts at trial. He paid the price. Most defendants plead guilty to avoid the trial tax; Kenneth went to trial, and the trial tax was levied against him in the form of a fifty-year sentence. By contrast, Kenneth’s co-defendants pleaded guilty and received significantly shorter sentences. NACDL is uniquely positioned to observe the criminal justice system. Over time, based on empirical data and the experiences of its members, NACDL has developed an understanding of the trial tax—the reality that individuals who choose to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial face exponentially higher sentences if they invoke the right to trial and lose. It is NACDL’s position that the trial tax is antithetical to the American concept of justice because it diminishes jury trials, undermines the legal system’s goal of truth-seeking, relieves the government of its burden of proof, contributes to wrongful convictions, and disproportionately hurts young people. Kenneth Robinson’s case in particular starkly reveals the dangers to a defendant who chooses to exercise his constitutional right to trial.

Letter to members of Congress regarding much-needed reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture laws, as addressed in the Fifth Amendment Integrity Restoration (FAIR) Act of 2015 (H.R. 540/S. 255)

Letter to members of Congress regarding much-needed reforms to federal civil asset forfeiture law as addressed in the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2014 (H.R. 5212).

President Lisa Wayne's letter to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee regarding expectations of right to counsel, due process, and other constitutional protections in prosecuting crimes occurring on Native land, as addressed in the Stand Against Violence and Empower (SAVE) Native Women Act (S. 1763, 2011).

Federal sentencing/Burden of proof. Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Federal Defenders and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: After United States v. Booker, all determinate facts which increase the defendant’s federal guidelines sentence must be found beyond a reasonable doubt.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: A defendant’s withdrawal from a conspiracy during the statute of limitations period negates and element of a conspiracy charge such that, once a defendant meets his burden of production that he did withdraw, the burden of proof rests with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a member of the conspiracy during the relevant period. The requirement that the prosecution prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a defendant’s foremost safeguard against a wrongful conviction. The defendant’s withdrawal defense negated the “participation” element of the conspiracy, and relieving prosecutors of their burden to prove a defendant’s mental state substantially undermines the fairness of the trial by diluting one of the most important protections against wrongful convictions.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner John Yates.

Argument: Petitioner's conviction under Sarbanes-Oxley exemplifies overcriminalization through an unconstitutional expansion of the law. Executive expansion of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 to include red grouper furthers the overcriminalization epidemic. Red grouper are not “tangible objects” under Sarbanes-Oxley. Even if Sarbanes-Oxley applies to fish, Yates’ conduct did not impede, obstruct, or influence a federal investigation. Overcriminalization places a growing burden on the administration of justice, often resulting in ludicrous federal convictions for conduct that, traditional, falls outside constitutionally anticipated federal purview.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. 

Argument: Petitioner's conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1519 and 2232 through his conduct aboard the Miss Katie exemplifies overcriminalization stemming from an unconstitutional executive expansion of the law. As a matter of law, the Petitioner could not have been adjudicated guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (2012) as the application of an anti-shredding statute to three rotten fish is an unconstitutional expansion of the law and a violation of statutory construction. Executive expansion of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 to include red grouper furthers the overcriminalization epidemic. Additionally, the lower courts committed reversible error when they effectively shifted the burden of proof from the government to the Petitioner on the issue of whether the fish were undersized. No reasonable jury could have convicted the Petitioner under § 2232 because the government failed to meet its burden of proof.