Motion to Dismiss Indictment & Motion to Strike Surplusage from Indictment filed in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts (MS-13 & RICO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA: USA v. Licciardi & Nunez

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. 

US District Court District of Connecticut: Copenhaver et. al Indictment - conspiracy to commit mail fraud 

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendants-Appellants in Support of Affirmance of Dismissal of money laundering conspiracy count.

Argument: In that Congress provided an exception to the money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. §1956-1957, for bona fideattorneys’ fees – transactions “necessary to preserve” an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to representation—the government’s parsimonious view of what is “necessary” to a defense threatens to hamstring all complex criminal defense efforts by interjecting the threat of prosecution into every monetary transaction over $10,000 in which counsel enters. The threat of possible prosecution of retained counsel in virtually any case may well dissuade attorneys from taking on clients in certain types of cases, thus depriving some defendants of their right to counsel of choice.

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.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Appellant Tarek Mehanna and reversal of his conviction.

Argument: “The district court misapplied First Circuit and United States Supreme Court conspiracy law. Moreover, these errors go not only to the heart of the substantive criminal law, but also to the First Amendment’s protection. From the scope of the indictment, through the court’s evidentiary rulings [admission of inflammatory evidence], and finally, its instructions, the result was a prosecution that effectively criminalized unpopular thought and expression unmoored from criminal conduct.”

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

Argument: A Hobbs Act conspiracy charge requires proof of an agreement to obtain property from a third party. The unambiguous meaning of the text enacted by Congress delineates the outer bounds of the Hobbs Act offense. The Court should not construe the Hobbs Act to intrude upon areas traditionally reserved to state law.