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.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support defendant-appellee.

Argument: The court of appeals does not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291 over government appeals in a pending criminal case, and the government has no “clear and indisputable right to relief” on mandamus to overturn a discretionary decision based on circuit precedent.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant Brian Davis.

Argument: By 1995 Congress had overwhelming evidence that the 100:1 crack/powder cocaine sentencing ratio disproportionately impacted African Americans and was the principal cause for the widening gap in the length of incarceration for African American and white offenders. Nonetheless, in 1995, Congress rejected proposed equalization and left the 100:1 ratio intact despite its knowledge of the ratio’s discriminatory impact and without suggesting any rational basis for preserving the ratio. Congress’s 1995 reaffirmation of that ratio violated equal protection. It fails under strict scrutiny and fails under rational basis review. And continuing to enforce sentences imposed under the 100:1 ratio will erode public confidence in the judicial system and may undermine the effective administration of justice. This Court has not addressed in a published opinion whether Congress’s 1995 decision to reaffirm the 100:1 ration violated equal protection. NACDL urges the Court (i) to reverse the District Court’s decision holding that Congress did not violate equal protection by rejecting the Commission’s proposed 1:1 ratio and (ii) to remand the case.