Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Walters’ counsel’s utter failure to communicate constructively denied him counsel so prejudice should be presumed. Alternatively, Mr. Walters established prejudice under Strickland and Frye resulting from his counsel’s pervasive neglect. There is a reasonable probability that the favorable March plea offer would have been accepted and entered if counsel had communicated with Mr. Walters. If Mr. Stanley’s deficient performance is instead viewed as a series of separate errors, Strickland compels a cumulative consideration of prejudice.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Argument: Padilla held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to advise non-citizen clients of the risk of deportation from a guilty plea. Denaturalization is just as closely tied to the criminal process and at least as severe a punishment as deportation—indeed, the end goal of denaturalization is typically deportation. Counsel therefore also has a Sixth Amendment duty to advise naturalized citizens of the risk of denaturalization and, ultimately, deportation from a guilty plea. Adopting such a rule would be consistent with prevailing norms of professional practice and impose little burden on defense counsel.

Brief dated February 2, 2010. Joint amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the New York State Bar Association, the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the New York County Lawyers’ Association, Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University School of Law,

Argument: Jacob Burns Center for Ethics in the Practice of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Criminal Justice Center at Pace University School of Law, Center on Latino and Latina Rights and Equality at CUNY School of Law, and 40 New York law professors from all 15 law schools in New York State.

The decision of the Appellate Division, Third Department should be reversed. The right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and the New York State constitutional analogue (Art. I, Sec. 6) is broader than the right to assistance at trial and requires more than the mere appointment of counsel. The Strickland post-conviction remedial standard is the wrong standard in a class action seeking prospective relief to halt and prevent system-wide deficiencies in how New York meets its constitutional obligation to provide indigent defendants effective assistance of counsel. The right to effective assistance of counsel is cognizable prospectively.

Joint amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, and The Constitution Project.

Argument: The right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and the Michigan State constitutional analogue is broader than the right to assistance at trial and requires more than the mere appointment of counsel. The Strickland post-conviction remedial standard is the wrong standard in a class action seeking prospective relief to halt and prevent system-wide deficiencies in how Michigan meets its constitutional obligation to provide indigent defendants effective assistance of counsel. The right to effective assistance of counsel is cognizable prospectively. The failure to provide adequate indigent defense services disproportionately burdens communities of color.

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Argument: The violations alleged by the plaintiffs cause ongoing and cognizable harm. The district court applied the wrong legal framework to the plaintiffs' claims. A criminal defendant has a fundamental right to counsel at any "critical stage" of the proceedings against him. The Sixth Amendment can also be violated if the attorney's performance fails to meet constitutional standards. Federal and state courts addressing claims for prospective relief, like the plaintiffs' claims here, have rejected application of the Strickland standard.

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

Argument: The Texas court’s prejudice ruling on the Brady violations disregards the realities of criminal trial practice. Sound criminal trial practice discourages exploratory cross-examination. Impeachment is critical to effective cross-examination. The Texas court’s ruling on the Caston Deal ignores sound trial practice. The Texas court’s ruling on the prior inconsistent statements is similarly flawed. The Texas court’s errors reflect broader confusion over how to analyze prejudice from Brady violations. The Texas court’s refusal to conduct cumulative error analysis ignores the real-world interactions among multiple errors. Multiple constitutional violations may combine to render a trial fundamentally unfair. Cumulative error analysis is imperative for Brady and Strickland violations.