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

Argument: When a defendant opens the door to responsive evidence, he does not also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause. The New York rule chills vital defense arguments. The New York rule forces defendants into a Hobson’s choice between constitutional rights. The New York rule undermines the institution of the criminal trial.

Materials for arguing against government informant and ex parte discussions regarding the conspiracy and closing off discovery regarding the informant's statements regarding the alleged conspiracy.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Federal Defenders and National College for DUI Defense in support of Petitioner.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION: USA v. Alvarez et al. 

Argument: JOINT DEFENSE MOTION TO PERMIT OPPORTUNTY TO CONFRONT AND REBUT EX PARTE SHOWING BY GOVERNMENT TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY MANDATED BY DUE PROCESS AND BY FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA: USA v. Herrera et al. 

Argument: GUILLERMO HERRERA’S MOTION TO CONFRONT AND REBUT EX PARTE SHOWING IN SUPPORT OF FINAL PROTECTIVE ORDER

US District Court Northern District of California: United States of America v. Cerna et al. 

Amici curiae brief of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Petitioner.

Argument: Virginia’s statutory subpoena alternative is not justified by a “sky-will-otherwise-fall” rationale requiring forensic lab technicians and other prosecution experts to testify in open court, as the Supreme Court specified last term in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts,129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). The requirement that the defendant call a prosecution witness, rather than the state, is no substitute for the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, because the Confrontation Clause procedure promotes justice in the manner in which it allocates burdens to the prosecution and opportunities to the defense. In addition, the statutory subpoena alternative is an entirely different and less effective means of adversarial testing that diminishes accuracy and reliability in the criminal justice system.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supporting grant of the petition for certiorari.

Argument: There is a conflict in the federal circuits as to whether a trial court’s restriction of a defendant’s ability to cross-examine his accuser is to be reviewed de novo on appeal or for abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reviews a military judge's decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. The Court should resolve this conflict because it implicates an issue of fundamental importance, the scope of a defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accusers.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant. 

Argument: The defendant’s confrontation right precludes the use of drug testing lab “litigation packages” and surrogate expert witnesses (witnesses who testify not no first-hand knowledge of the facts, but as to the hearsay reports and opinions of others); admission of the drug test report materials at defendant’s trial pursuant to Military Rule of Evidence 803(6) violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him; opinions offered by the prosecution under M.R.E. 703 cannot satisfy the requirements of the Confrontation Clause when the underlying facts or data come from a nontestifying person or entity.

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

Argument: Statements to police accusing a person of a crime and describing the offense after its completion are testimonial in nature and do not fall outside the Confrontation Clause even though the suspect remains at large or has been injured.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association in support of petitioner.

Argument: At the petitioner’s trial for driving while intoxicated, the prosecution called an analyst who took no part in the testing of petitioner’s blood for alcohol content; the New Mexico Supreme Court held that blood alcohol analysis was a simple test in which the presence of the actual analyst was not necessary to interpret the results. This often-technical brief argues that blood alcohol testing using gas chromatography (GC) for analyzing blood alcohol involves exercise of the analyst’s judgment in interpreting results that presents a risk of error that can be discovered only through cross-examination of the analyst who ran the test; a proper cross-examination would include questions that only the actual analyst could answer.

Amicus curiae brief of the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: DNA laboratory analysts are not infallible. Developing a DNA profile of a suspect from biologic evidence collected in a criminal investigation is a complicated process requiring skill and judgment; making the prosecution expert who declares a DNA “match” available for cross-examination does not obviate the necessity of cross-examination of the lab analyst who actually did the benchwork developing the DNA profile. 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Autopsy procedures are not standardized and incorporate evidence beyond that obtained from the body, including evidence provided by the police. Autopsy reports convey circumstantial evidence as authoritative and fail to reflect internal dissent. Medical examiners view themselves as advocates for the dead The nature of autopsy reports marks them as testimonial and hence subject to the strictures of the Confrontation Clause.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Whether the confrontation clause applies during capital sentencing hearings is unresolved. This Court’s review is necessary to ensure that states may not strategically elude cross-examination of critical evidence.

Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondent. 

Argument: Teachers play a critical role in the prosecution of child abuse cases. Teachers question abused children for the primary purpose of gathering evidence for future prosecution. States assign other non-law enforcement officials to investigate child abuse cases. Reversing the Ohio Supreme Court would give law enforcement a roadmap to exempt child abuse testimony from confrontation. The right to confrontation through cross-examination is especially critical in child abuse cases because, as this Court has acknowledged, children are particularly susceptible to suggestion and often produce unreliable and imagined testimony.