Brief of Proposed Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Argument: Rule 31(b)(3) permits district courts to exercise discretion in declaring a mistrial or allowing a retrial. The district court carefully weighed the critically important interests underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause. 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as amicus curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: Richardson does not apply when the jury reaches a verdict after the prosecution had a full opportunity to present its case. Yeager confirms that Richardson should not be applied categorically. Rote extension of Richardson offends the original understanding of the collateral order doctrine.

Amicus curiae brief of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant.

Argument: When a person accesses another’s stored email without authorization, that single act may not be the basis for both an underlying misdemeanor and a felony enhancement. Ordinarily, first offenses under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Stored Communications Act are misdemeanors, unless committed for, among other things, in furtherance of another crime. In this case, the defendant’s CFAA offense, unauthorized access to stored email, was not committed “in furtherance of” an SCA violation, because both convictions were based on the same conduct. The government’s attempt to count the same conduct as both an underlying misdemeanor and as the basis for a felony conviction violates the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the petition for certiorari.

Argument: In this capital case, the jury, per the court’s instructions, acquitted the defendant of capital murder, then of first-degree murder, but then could not agree on whether the defendant was guilty of manslaughter, and the court declared a mistrial. Supreme Court double jeopardy case law, particularly Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (1957) and Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (1970), bars the petitioner-defendant’s retrial on the acquitted charges of capital and first degree murder.

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

Argument: Contrary to the District Court’s interpretation, Dowling does not establish a blanket rule that the issue preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause never operates to exclude evidence. At the very least, where issue preclusion serves to narrow the indictment on retrial, evidence of acquitted conduct may not be admitted as “intrinsic” evidence, unregulated by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), and without engaging in a careful balancing under Rule 403.

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

Argument: An acquittal by the court is always a bar to further proceedings for the same offense. The rule applies even if the acquittal resulted “from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles.” United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 89 (1978). An error of law leading to an acquittal “affects the accuracy of that determination, but it does not alter its essential character.” 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (cert. stage).

Argument: Uncertainty regarding the double jeopardy implications of the "Unable to Agree" instruction hinders the administration of criminal justice. Conflicting interpretations of the double jeopardy clause burden defendants, defense counsel, and the judicial system.

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers – Miami Chapter in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: The doctrinal foundation of the separate sovereigns doctrine has been eroded. The practical foundation of the separate sovereigns doctrine has been eroded. The Court should abandon the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause to ensure that the Fifth Amendment guarantee against successive prosecutions accords with modern Constitutional jurisprudence and law enforcement practices.

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

Argument: Relying on a vacated conviction to deprive an acquittal of its collateral estoppel effect is inconsistent with Yeager and fundamentally unfair. The First Circuit's decision makes collateral estoppel effectively unavailable in multi-count prosecutions resulting in a vacated conviction. The First Circuit's decision encourages overcharging and successive prosecutions.

Sattazahn decision is step back from fair justice; will make those spared death penalty face it again - Washington, DC (January 14, 2003) -- In response to today's U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing defendants who have received a life sentence to be re-subjected to the death penalty if the jury vote for life was not unanimous, Chris Adams, Death Penalty Counsel for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, issued the following statement: