David v. Missouri 20AC-CC00093 (Cole County, MO)

Holding “the State fails in its obligation to provide counsel when it fails to provide counsel . . . within . . . [a] two week period, as such a failure falls below the minimal obligation placed upon the State to appoint counsel within a reasonable time after attachment.” The Court found delays of assigning counsel of more than 2 weeks violated the Missouri Constitution’s right to counsel.

NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.

In 2019 the Missouri legislature passed HB 126, a complete ban on abortion except in a medical emergency to take effect upon notice from the state attorney general, governor, or General Assembly that Roe v. Wade is overruled in whole or in part. A violation of HB 126 is a class B felony punishable by 5-15 years in prison. See Mo. Rev. Stat. 188.017. The attorney general and governor have provided the notice needed to trigger HB 126.

Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in Missouri.

Information on the policy and history of recording custodial interrogations in Missouri.

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Missouri

Brief of Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL) and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer (NACDL) as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant and Intervenor.

Argument: Conviction of innocent persons cannot be tolerated. A prosecutor should be able to exercise her statutory and ethical duty to assist in overturning wrongful convictions. Missouri’s state habeas corpus rule is inadequate to provide a remedy to innocent persons who are wrongfully convicted because it requires the innocent person, who may be without counsel, to file and litigate his petition in the county where he is in custody rather than the county of conviction. Missouri Court Rules 29.11 (motion for new trial) and 29.12 (plain error) should be construed to allow a prosecutor to file a motion in the trial court to correct a wrongful conviction.

Brief of Amici Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. Supporting Respondent Jerri Smiley (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller v. Alabama reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are categorically less culpable than adults. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence that children are different than adults in constitutionally relevant ways is not limited to a specific crime or sentence. Because of adolescents' reduced culpability, Missouri's armed criminal action statute cannot be mechanically applied to juvenile offenders. Incarcerating juvenile offenders in adult facilities diminishes public safety and places youth at risk of severe harm.

Amicus curiae brief of the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: After the trial court erroneously admitted evidence (firearm, ammunition and marijuana) seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, the defendant admitted under oath that the gun and marijuana were his. The court of appeals held that while the trial court clearly erred in denying Norfolk’s motion to suppress, given the defendant’s confession in open court, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. When evidence is erroneously admitted at trial, the defendant’s subsequent testimony cannot render that error harmless; Missouri’s harmless error rule regarding subsequent testimony has been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court and makes little practical sense.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL).

Argument: In the criminal justice system, non-party participants and letter writers, as well as other witnesses deserve a certain level of protection to be free from prosecutorial use of abusive process, free from coercive threats and intimidation, and free from gratuitous retaliation for refusal to accede to those prosecutorial threats and intimidation. In this case, Respondent Eric G. Zahnd holds a special place of trust as a prosecutor. He countenanced and participated in abusive process, coercive threats and reprisal for failure to capitulate to his threats. NACDL and MACDL take no position regarding the appropriate level of sanction, but suggest that a finding of ethical violation of Rules 4-4.4(a), 4-5.1(c) and 4-8.4 is appropriate in this circumstance to both discipline Respondent Zahnd, and also to deter other attorneys, especially prosecutors, from engaging in similar conduct going forward in order to protect future non-party witnesses and letter writers from fear of such abuses; which in turn, protects defendants’ rights to due process and fair proceedings. Discipline in this case is necessary to accomplish the goals of the disciplinary process to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the legal profession. In re McMillin, 521 S.W.3d 604, 610 (Mo. banc 2017).