Complaint filed in Duncan v. State of Michigan, a civil rights class action brought pursuant to the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment alleging inadequate funding and oversight of indigent defense services. 
 

We write to propose a category of individuals who are deserving of clemency. Specifically, we respectfully request that you consider clemency for (1) individuals who suffered severe sentences as a consequence of having exercised their Sixth Amendment right to trial rather than having pleaded guilty and (2) individuals who accepted severe plea bargains under threat of substantially greater post-trial sentences. These scenarios—routine in our criminal justice system—illustrate a profound constitutional and human injustice: the “trial penalty”…

An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei

The police regularly target people of color by using pretextual vehicle and traffic violations – including illegal window tint and disobeying a crosswalk signal – to justify the initial interaction. The goal of police officers is to escalate the encounter with false allegations of the smell of marijuana or furtive movements to enable them to conduct a full-blown search. How can defense counsel make a motion to suppress evidence based upon an allegation of racial targeting?

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s letter to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding federal disclosure obligations and suggesting an amendment to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Coalition letter to Governor Greg Abbott, of Texas, regarding his executive order (GA-13) refusing to allow release of inmates from state detention facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brief of the National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Delegate Patrick A. Hope as Amici Curiae in Support of Petition for Appeal.

Argument: The Circuit Court Violated Virginia law and due process by allowing the Commonwealth to expert-shop and admitting only its second, illegally obtained expert opinion. The Circuit Court violated Virginia law and due process by arbitrarily precluding Mr. Baughman from presenting testimony by Dr. Gravers and Dr. Krueger in his defense at trial.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners. 

Argument: This case asks whether a reasonable jury could find that police officers use excessive force when they kill a shackled and handcuffed arrestee inside of a jail cell by compression asphyxiation. The Eighth Circuit’s decision departs from an otherwise uniform national rule established by all other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments categorically prohibit the asphyxiation of a restrained arrestee or pre-trial detainee who poses no threat to officers or others. The national rule applied outside of the Eighth Circuit is the only rule that conforms to the Supreme Court’s cases governing the use of deadly force, is deeply rooted in the Fourth Amendment and prevailing common-law rules, and is consistent with statutes and law enforcement policies already in effect across American jurisdictions. Categorically prohibiting the use of deadly force, such as compression asphyxia, on restrained citizens is essential to the fair administration of criminal justice. 

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

Argument: Like Gideon v. Wainwright (the only case the Supreme Court has recognized as falling within Teague v. Lane’s watershed rule exception), Ramos v. Louisiana is a watershed rule and therefore, under Teague v. Lane, applies retroactivity to cases on collateral federal review.  Ramos, like Gideon, overturned a badly flawed, errant precedent to restore a bedrock Sixth Amendment right.  Ramos, like Gideon also increases the accuracy of convictions, when accuracy is properly understood to refer to the fairness of the process and the likelihood that the defendant received procedural protections guaranteed by the Constitution, rather than the likelihood that actual guilt or innocence is determined.

Memorandum of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Vermont.

Argument: The COVID-19 pandemic is of unprecedented national and global significance, necessitating a drastic local response. The rate of infection in the Vermont DOC is striking in comparison both to the rate of infection in Vermont as a whole, and even compared to the highest rate of infection for any state in the country. The Department of Corrections is demonstrably ill-equipped to adequately respond to the pandemic, and the Court must intervene to protect the constitutional rights of those incarcerated. The Court should join with judges from other jurisdictions across the country, who have reviewed inmate motions and petitions similar to those that are currently before this Court, and who have taken steps to reduce incarceration by releasing inmates on bail in light of this unprecedented pandemic and the conditions of confinement issues it brings to light.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Office of the Ohio Public Defender [and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in Support of Appellant, David C. Kinney, Jr.

Argument: The prohibition in R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)--which is entirely unique to Ohio--is most accurately understood as a legislative oversight with severe unintended consequences. But even if not, it is unconstitutional on both cruel-and-unusual-punishment and equal-protection grounds. Amici Curiae urge this Court to provide meaningful appellate review of sentences for aggravated murder in Ohio.

The authors proclaim that it is time to get back to the original premise of In re Gault and Fourteenth Amendment protections. They argue that the same reasoning courts have applied to postconviction proceedings must be applied at the trial level: Children are fundamentally different from adults, and these differences require enhanced procedural protections at all phases of prosecution — in delinquency court as well as in cases that are transferred to the adult system.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae Supporting Reversal.

Argument: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the prosecution suppresses evidence that it provided remuneration to its key witness for her cooperation, the key witness testifies that the prosecution did not provide remuneration, and the prosecution fails to correct the witness' false testimony. When suppressed evidence of the prosecutor's use of a paid witness is uncovered and reveals that the paid witness lied under oath, the case unquestionably presents itself in a different light than the evidence presented at trial.The prosecutor's suppression of favorable evidence coupled with the introduction of false testimony has always been considered a Due Process violation that warrants a new trial. The age of exoneration has demonstrated that Brady violations and false testimony are often the culprits in wrongful convictions.

Brief of Amici Curiae California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Mexican Capital Legal Assistance Program in Support of Petitioner-Appellee and Supporting Affirmance.

Argument: The District Court’s ruling that the California death penalty system cannot withstand scrutiny under the Constitution is correct. Delays in California’s review of death penalty judgments are attributable in significant part to the state’s failure to timely provide and protect the function of court-appointed counsel. The District Court’s analysis of the inadequacies of California’s implementation of the right to counsel throughout the state’s death penalty litigation process is well supported. Several characteristics of California’s death penalty litigation system contribute to the systemic delays. Systemic delays can cause prejudice.

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

Argument: Principled rationales for punishment do not justify criminal responsibility for individuals who lack moral culpability. None of the punishment embraced by American criminal law justifies punishing people who lack moral capacity. The insanity defense has protected from criminal punishment individuals who lack moral culpability. Abolishing the insanity defense, as Kansas has done, allows people who lack moral culpability to be imprisoned and executed.