Brief of Amicus Curiae, Office of the Ohio Public Defender [and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in Support of Appellant, David C. Kinney, Jr.

Argument: The prohibition in R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)--which is entirely unique to Ohio--is most accurately understood as a legislative oversight with severe unintended consequences. But even if not, it is unconstitutional on both cruel-and-unusual-punishment and equal-protection grounds. Amici Curiae urge this Court to provide meaningful appellate review of sentences for aggravated murder in Ohio.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument: The Twelfth Appellate District was wrong to rely on dicta and focus on officer culpability in order to expand the narrow exceptions to the exclusionary rule. This court should apply the exclusionary rule when there is no equivocal binding precedent authorizing a particular search. Knotts and Karo were not unequivocal binding precedent at the time law enforcement placed a GPS tracking device on Johnson’s car. A cost-benefit analysis tilts in favor of suppression in Johnson’s case.

Joint amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Center for Democracy and Technology, American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Seven Ohio Professors of Law.

Argument: The decision of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County, should be reversed. To protect both First and Fourth Amendment rights, law enforcement should be required to secure a warrant based on probable cause prior to secretly installing GPS transmitter on a person’s vehicle and undertaking such surveillance.

Brief of amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendant-appellant.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that this case be remanded for individualized consideration of the ‘distinctive attributes of youth.’ The Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults and cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless age is taken into account. The principles of Miller apply equally whether the LWOP sentence is mandated or imposed as a matter of discretion. Miller and the Supreme Court’s individualized sentencing cases require that the trial court actually consider and address the defendant’s youth. The record does not demonstrate that Eric Long’s age and attendant circumstances were considered in making the decision to sentence him to life without parole. This Court should, pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, declare a life without parole sentence unconstitutional for any juvenile offender.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment prohibits sentencing a juvenile to a term-of-years sentence that precludes any possibility of release during the juvenile’s life expectancy. The Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that children, because they are categorically less culpable than adults, must be subject to categorically less severe sentences than adults. This Court should consider, pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, articulating more fully how Ohio courts must treat youths differently than adults at sentencing.

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and The Innocence Network In Support of Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Wogenstahl.

Argument: The terms of the microscopic hair comparison analysis (MHCA) review firmly establish the parameters of microscopic hair comparison. Testimony that exceeds those limits is false and erroneous testimony. The terms of the MHCA established the limits of the "science" of microscopic hair comparison for the first time. Juries are overly confident in subjective "sciences" such as microscopic hair comparison. The lower court improperly analyzed the significance of the MHCA review.

Brief of Amici Curiae The Center for HIV Law and Policy, The American Academy of HIV Medicine, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, Human Rights Campaign, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The National Center for Lesbian Rights, The Office of the Ohio Public Defender, and Treatment Action Group on Behalf of Appellant Orlando Batista.

Argument: R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) ("The Act") violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Equal protection forbids arbitrary, irrational classifications. The Act singles out people living with HIV for differential treatment. The Act cannot survive rational basis review. The Act's classification is arbitrary because it is over-inclusive. HIV-specific criminal laws are empirically proven to have no effect on the spread of HIV. Criminalization of nondisclosure is counterproductive. The absence of any rational basis for the Act suggests unlawful animus. The Act violates prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability.

Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc., Center for HIV Law and Policy, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ohio Public Defender, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Center for Constitutional Rights, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Campaign, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), National LGBTQ Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, American Academy of HIUV Medicine, Treatment Action Group, Nueva Luz Urban Resource Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant.

Argument: R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates the Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment and of Section 11, Article I, Ohio Constitution. R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability.

Brief of Amici Curiae Immigrant Defense Project and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellee.

Argument: A non-citizen defendant suffers prejudice when defense counsel fails to advise of potential immigration consequences, even if the court notifies defendant that he or she “may” face immigration consequences. Judicial notifications cannot cure defense counsel’s foregone negotiations for an immigration-safe plea. The statutorily mandated language in Ohio, which states that the guilty plea “may” result in deportation, does not accurately advise a defendant whose deportation is virtually certain and mandatory. Judicial notifications given without regard to a defendant’s particular circumstances must be given little weight in the prejudice analysis. The roles and responsibilities of court and counsel are legally and practically distinct. Allowing court notifications to replace advice from defense counsel contradicts Padilla v. Kentucky, which placed the burden of giving the advice regarding immigration consequences squarely on defense counsel.