Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure habeas corpus rules.

NACDL President Jim Lavine's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.

In the US District Court For The Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division: United States of America v. Chapman

Motion For Appropriate Relief 
Informal Brief of Habeas Corpus

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

Argument: A Rule 59 motion is "part and parcel" of a habeas petitioner's "one full opportunity" to litigate a first federal habeas petition. The Fifth Circuit's rule leads to inefficient judicial administration of habeas petitions and unfair results for habeas petitioners. Rule 59 motions allow district courts to correct their own errors before judgment becomes final, thus avoiding unnecessary reversals and unfair results. Rule 59 motions also allow district courts to clarify their own orders even where they continue to deny relief, thus avoiding unnecessary remands. Eliminating Rule 59 motions would create additional burdens for the court of appeals. Recharacterizing Rule 59 motions as unauthorized second or successive petitions would deprive many petitioners of the opportunity to appeal in their first federal habeas proceedings.

En Banc Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Section 2255 relief is "inadequate or ineffective" if the petitioner does not have a "genuine opportunity" to challenge his sentence. The weight of appellate authority suggests that a section 2255 proceeding is "inadequate or ineffective" if the petitioner lacks a "genuine opportunity" to challenge his sentence. The Savings Clause’s text, structure, and history confirm the majority view. An opportunity to challenge a sentence is not genuine if the challenge would have been futile. McCarthan never had a "genuine opportunity" to challenge his sentence. The Savings Clause opens the door to sentencing challenges, not just challenges to the execution of a sentence or when the sentencing court no longer exists. NACDL’s proposed test would not raise policy concerns.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on petition for writ of certiorari).

Argument: The Sixth Circuit’s new relation back standard erects an arbitrary barrier to the amendment of Brady claims. It is irreconcilable with the language of Rule 15, its purpose, this Court’s decision in Mayle v. Felix, the standard applied in civil litigation, and the standards applied in other circuits. Given the grave threat to the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice process, and the importance of consistent application of the Federal Rules, this Court should grant the petition and clarify a uniform standard for Rule 15’s relation back provision. The State acknowledged that it suppressed exculpatory evidence in Mr. Hill’s case. And the case arises in Hamilton County, Ohio, where a long history of Brady violations has been well-documented and is beyond dispute. The district court judge and two of the three judges on the Sixth Circuit panel agreed that Mr. Hill’s Brady claim could succeed on the merits. It was the majority’s new interpretation of Rule 15 that barred his claim. Because this case offers the Court a clean shot at resolving a question of great importance that divides the lower courts, the petition should be granted.