Brief Of The Cato Institute, FAMM Foundation, and National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner (in support of petition for writ of certiorari).

Argument: The independence of citizen juries is a well-established and crucial feature of our legal and constitutional history. The District Court’s openness to permitting evidence and argument as to the consequences of a conviction is a reasonable exercise of the court’s discretion not subject to control by mandamus. The District Court’s provisional decisions thoughtfully harmonize different threads of modern case law, respecting the jury’s traditional authority to issue conscientious acquittals while still operating within the strictures of precedent. Permitting a jury to hear evidence about the consequences of conviction is especially reasonable in a case with a severe and surprising mandatory minimum. Protecting jury independence is all the more important given the vanishingly small role that jury trials play in our criminal justice system.

Brief of the Cato Institute and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing by Panel and Rehearing En Banc

Argument: The independence of citizen juries is a well-established and crucial feature of our legal and constitutional history. The panel majority erred in upholding the district court’s instruction suggesting that Lynch’s jury could be punished for engaging in nullification. Protecting jury independence is all the more important because of the vanishingly small role that jury trials play in our criminal justice system.

Brief of the Cato Institute, FAMM Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent

Argument: The independence of citizen juries is a well-established and crucial feature of our legal and constitutional history. The District Court’s openness to permitting evidence and argument as to the consequences of a conviction is a reasonable exercise of the Court’s discretion, not subject to control by mandamus. The District Court’s provisional decisions thoughtfully harmonize different threads of modern case law, respecting the jury’s traditional authority to issue conscientious acquittals while still operating within the strictures of precedent. Permitting a jury to hear evidence about the consequences of conviction is especially reasonable in a case with a severe and surprising mandatory minimum. Protecting jury independence is all the more important given the vanishingly small role that jury trials play in our criminal justice system.