We tell ourselves that we are protected from government abuse by a system of jury trials in which jurors decide guilt or innocence and judges determine sentences. What is the reality? We have abandoned the system of public jury trials established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of a shadow system of guilty pleas driven by the logic of prosecutorial power.

While the United States remains deeply divided over many issues, a broad consensus is emerging that the country must face the profound injustices – particularly racial and socioeconomic injustice – in the criminal legal system.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused individual the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. However, these rights have been strained by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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

Argument: Kenneth Robinson’s case is a quintessential example of why people plead guilty under the threat of a trial tax. Kenneth withstood the immense pressure to plead guilty. A child of only fifteen, charged with murder under the “hand of one, hand of all” doctrine, he exercised his right to a jury trial, foregoing a twenty-three-year offer to plea to manslaughter. He refused to relinquish his right to appeal, foregoing a thirty-year plea offer following guilty verdicts at trial. He paid the price. Most defendants plead guilty to avoid the trial tax; Kenneth went to trial, and the trial tax was levied against him in the form of a fifty-year sentence. By contrast, Kenneth’s co-defendants pleaded guilty and received significantly shorter sentences. NACDL is uniquely positioned to observe the criminal justice system. Over time, based on empirical data and the experiences of its members, NACDL has developed an understanding of the trial tax—the reality that individuals who choose to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial face exponentially higher sentences if they invoke the right to trial and lose. It is NACDL’s position that the trial tax is antithetical to the American concept of justice because it diminishes jury trials, undermines the legal system’s goal of truth-seeking, relieves the government of its burden of proof, contributes to wrongful convictions, and disproportionately hurts young people. Kenneth Robinson’s case in particular starkly reveals the dangers to a defendant who chooses to exercise his constitutional right to trial.

If the courtroom is a stage, then attorneys must make every moment count during their time in the spotlight. Attorney Mary DeFusco says evidence is everything the jury sees, hears, reasons, and feels. It is up to defense attorneys to make sure that as much of that information as possible is favorable to the defendant. She offers helpful tips to new lawyers so that they can use the stage to its full advantage.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) in support of defendant-appellant/cross-appellee Polizzi.

Argument: District court judge, recognizing that he had erred in not instructing or permitting the jury be informed that charges against the defendant carried a mandatory minimum sentence as required by the Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by jury, ordered a new trial, from which the government appeals. As far back as Colonial times, jurors were well-aware of the range of punishments for various offenses upon a guilty verdict, which gave them significant discretion over the defendant’s sentence. Brief also argues in the alternative that possession and receipt of child pornography charges are multiplicitous and violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Brief of Amici Curiae of Associations of Criminal Defense Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York Council of Defense Lawyers, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers).

Argument: This Court should grant review to clarify when harmless error will justify denial of the right to a jury determination on a contested essential element.