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

Argument: The New York Court of Appeals held that law enforcement may question an individual in custody regarding “pedigree” information without violating Miranda if the questions asked are not “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation.” Pet. App. 7a. As the Petition explains, the Court should review this holding because it reinforces a deep and abiding conflict of authority regarding the scope of the “booking exception” to Miranda, Pet. 7-12, and because the New York Court of Appeals erred in its approach to that exception, Pet. 12-15.

Behind Closed Doors Thomas K. Maher, Christopher Fialko August/September 2000 53 The Fifth Amendment Is Alive and Well In United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999), a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 effectively overruled the Supreme Court's decision i

In Hale v. Henkel (1906), the Supreme Court held that an officer of a corporation could not assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination on behalf of the corporation. The authors argue, however, that the basis for Hale is no longer valid. For the right client, defense attorneys should consider recommending assertion of the privilege.

NACDL White Collar Crime Counsel Caleb Kruckenberg's letter to House Judiciary Committee leadership regarding the Disclosing Foreign Influence Act (H.R. 4170, 2017).

Whether officer’s threat constituted reinitiation of interrogation after defendant has unequivocally asserted right to have attorney present during questioning, in violation of Edwards v. Arizona.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer in support of the petition for certiorari.

Argument: In the case below, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not apply to pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence, and therefore such silence in response to police questioning was admissible as evidence of guilt.

If a defendant’s pre-arrest silence in the face of police questioning may be admitted as evidence of guilt, the defendant faces a “cruel trilemma.” He can answer the police questions truthfully, possibly incriminating himself. He can lie to law enforcement, itself often a crime.3 Or he can remain silent and risk that his silence will be used against him as evidence of his guilt. The privilege against self-incrimination would be hollow if its exercise could be taken as equivalent to a confession of guilt.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Argument: Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Allowing the government to shield evidence of its wrongful search and seizure means that the injury to these other Constitutional rights cannot be remedied and must be presumed.  The fact that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs have been undermined by the surveillance at issue in this case supports the finding that this surveillance has been made in violation of the Fourth Amendment. When the Fourth Amendment falls, so do the Fifth and Sixth. This Court should therefore find the surveillance at issue in this case unlawful.

Amicus Curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Argument: Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Violating Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment right by seizing and searching all of their communications constitutes a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The government’s destruction of the evidence of its wrongful search and seizure means that the injury to these other Constitutional rights cannot be remediated and must be presumed. The fact that the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights of Plaintiffs have been undermined by the surveillance at issue in this case supports the finding that this surveillance has been made in violation of the Fourth Amendment. When the Fourth Amendment falls, so do the Fifth and Sixth. This Court should therefore find the surveillance at issue in this case unlawful.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union in support of respondent Van Chester Thompkins.

Argument: Prior to a 2 ½ hour interrogation, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and acknowledged that he understood them. Although he did not formally invoke his right to remain silent, he remained virtually silent throughout questioning until finally a detective testified that he asked Thompkins whether he had asked God to forgive him for “shooting that boy down,” and he answered “yes.” Brief argues that Thompkins effectively invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent during the interrogation and that any “implied waiver” of that right must occur much more quickly than the purported waiver on these facts.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of granting certiorari.

Argument: Persuading another to assert a valid Fifth Amendment or other privilege regarding incriminating information is not obstruction of justice.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the petition for certiorari; joint brief also filed in support of the petition in Walton v. United States, No. 12-5847.

Brief of Amicus Curiae filed by Daniel K. Gelb, Esquire and Daniel B. Garrie, Esquire to which National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers joins in support of defendant-appellant.

Argument: Compelling a password production to the Commonwealth is a violation of defendant’s right against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Society has adopted an objective expectation of privacy in computer passwords and encrypted data protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union in Support of Respondent. 

Argument: The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination applies at preliminary hearings. This principle is consistent with the Constitution’s text and with precedent. Limiting the Self-Incrimination Clause’s application to the criminal trial itself would severely prejudice defendants. The government’s policy concerns do not withstand scrutiny.