Brief of Amici CuriaeAmerican Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Compelling a criminal suspect to disclose a passcode is testimony privileged by the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment prohibits compelled disclosure of the contents of a suspect’s mind. Compelled disclosure of the passcode is testimonial. The Fifth District properly declined to apply the foregone-conclusion rationale in this case. The Foregone-conclusion analysis applies only to the production of specified, preexisting business records. Even if the foregone-conclusion rationale could apply in this context, the state must describe with reasonable particularity the incriminating files it seeks. Law enforcement has alternative methods of accessing encrypted devices.

In the Supreme Court of Florida: Sireci v. State of Florida; On appeal from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, State of Florida

Brief of Amicus Curiae The Innocence Network and NACDL

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

Argument: The Daubert standard is superior to Frye for ensuring the reliability of expert evidence and preventing wrongful convictions. Unlike Frye, expert testimony under Daubert must be based on more than “pure opinion.” Unlike Frye, which is limited to considering the expert’s methodology, Daubert evaluates the reliability of an expert’s methodology, reasoning and opinions. Unlike Daubert, which applies to all expert testimony, Frye only applies to “new or novel” scientific techniques. A number of unreliable forensic techniques are admitted under Frye because they are no longer new or novel. The Frye standard, which measures general acceptance by the insular community in question, exacerbates the problem of junk science.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Libertarian Law Council, and 25 law professors from across the United States.

Argument: Florida’s strict liability felony drug law runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and is inconsistent with centuries of common law.

Amicus curiae brief of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Public Interest Law Section of the Florida Bar, University of Miami School of Law Center for Ethics and Public Service, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Brennan Center for Justice, and the Constitution Project in support of petitioner.

Argument: The petitioner and assistant public defenders for the 11th Judicial Circuit have shown that their excessive caseloads imminently threaten not only to create conflicts of interest but also to deprive current and former indigent clients of constitutionally-effective assistance of counsel and are therefore entitled to limit further representations without waiting for those threats to materialize; extensive evidence presented in the trial court establishes both ongoing violations of the Sixth Amendment rights of petitioner’s clients and an unacceptable risk of future violations; the intermediate court of appeal improperly limited the scope of the Sixth Amendment as it applies to systemic deficiencies.

Brief of Amicus Curiae The Innocence Network and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.

Argument: Flawed forensic evidence like that used to convict Mr. Sireci is scientifically invalid. Faulty forensic evidence and related false testimony have contributed to the convictions of innocent people. Forensic evidence plays a key role in wrongful convictions because such evidence is generally perceived as infallible. The hair comparison evidence used to convict Mr. Sireci has been discredited. Hair comparison evidence like that proffered against Mr. Sireci is false and has contributed to at least 75 wrongful convictions. The hair comparison evidence introduced through William Munroe and relied upon by the state was erroneous. The Court’s ruling in Duckett is not controlling. Mr. Sireci is entitled to post-conviction relief.