Supplemental Facts and Exhibits in Support of Allegations in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

In The Supreme Court of The State of California: The People of The State of California v. Nelson 

Amicus Brief

Argument: APPLICATION OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR LEAVE TO FILE
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
DENNIS LOUIS NELSON; BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

Supplemental Amici Brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Real Parties in Interest.

Argument: The Stored Communications Act does not prohibit the discovery of "public" posts and the Federal Constitution requires the discovery of private "posts." This Court should decide the constitutional issues at hand.

Amici Brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Real Parties in Interest (On Petition for Review).

Argument: The State Supreme Court can rule on the federal constitutionality of a federal statute as applied in a state court proceeding where the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule. Social media content does not rise to the level of privileged information protected until trial as defined by this Court’s ruling in People v. Hammon. Hammonshould be overturned or limited to just the psychotherapist-patient privilege.

Amicus curiae brief of the Juvenile Law Center, Human Rights Advocates, Human Rights Watch, the Loyola Law School Center for Law and Policy, and the Disability Rights Legal Center filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant-appellant.

Argument: Sentencing a juvenile to imprisonment – a term of years – with a parole eligibility date that falls past his natural life expectancy violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. 

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. California Penal Code § 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes that life without parole is the appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement of individual sentencing. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement that juvenile life without parole sentences be uncommon. Absent a determination that appellant is among the ‘uncommon’ juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is justified, his sentence must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Application of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Maryland Public Defender, and Interested Legal Scholars for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Amicus Brief in Support of Defendant and Appellant Mark Buza.

Argument: Maryland v. King did not establish a per se rule authorizing warrantless collection of DNA from arrestees. California arrestee DNA collection law violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeal properly recognized California's constitutional protection against unlawful searches and seizures precludes the warrantless collection and search of arrestee DNA. DNA collection implicates significant privacy interests. DNA contains a person's most private and personal information. As the cost of DNA processing drops, the government is already expanding its collection and use of DNA. Excessive DNA collection poses very real threats to liberty.

Proposed Amici Curiae Brief by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al., in Support of Petitioner Ron Douglas Patterson.

Argument: Defense counsel in California have long understood and accepted their constitutional obligation to advise noncitizen clients that they face mandatory deportation upon conviction. Defense counsel in California have long understood and accepted their duty to defend against adverse immigration consequences. Counsel's obligations are well documented in relevant guidelines and publications, and counsel have access to an array of resources to assist them in fulfilling this duty.