Showing 1 - 4 of 4 results
Allshouse v. Pennsylvania
Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, and the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania in support of the petition for certiorari.
Argument: Statements to child services workers are testimonial in nature. Child services workers are under a legal obligation to submit detailed reports to law enforcement officials when they suspect abuse. This legal obligation, as well as their role in law enforcement investigations, shapes their interviews, even though children are particularly susceptible to suggestion during questioning. Since the primary purpose of child services workers’ investigations is to gather evidence for use in future criminal prosecutions, statements of questionable reliability made to them are testimonial under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
Medina v. Arizona
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.
Ohio v. Clark
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.