Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Letter to members of the Judicial Conference regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae (on petition for a writ of certiorari).

Argument: The jury system is an imperfect protection against wrongful convictions. The “Equipoise Rule” helps courts to fulfill their duty to protect defendants’ right to be convicted by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A court must enter a judgment of acquittal if no rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases where the evidence is in Equipoise, no rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Equipoise rule meaningfully protects defendants’ constitutional rights.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant.

Argument: The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt protects both individual defendants and society's faith in the criminal justice system. The reasonable doubt standard protects the due process rights of individual defendants. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt also ensures the confidence of society in the outcomes of criminal trials. Jury instructions regarding the meaning of "reasonable doubt" are essential in ensuring criminal trials that comport with due process. The reasonable doubt instructions given in this case falls below the standard required by due process. Use of the phrase "firmly convinced" without a sentence distinguishing the reasonable-doubt burden from civil evidentiary burdens risks juror confusion. Using the word "only" to characterize the prosecution's burden, without simultaneously indicating that the burden is "heavy," minimizes the burden. Failing to instruct the jury that reasonable doubt may be based on a lack of evidence unduly heightens the bar for acquittal. Due to the combination of its deficiencies, the instruction given in this case did not serve the dual purposes of the reasonable-doubt burden.