Though well-intentioned, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) is a broad and vague statute and any efforts should be focused on narrowing and clarifying its nebulous rules. NACDL believes that existing Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement authority is sufficient to enforce the statute, as recent high-profile cases have shown, and that granting additional enforcement tools is neither warranted nor worth the risk of overreach.

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellee/Cross-Appellant and Urging Reversal. 

Argument: Mr. Sumpter was convicted of several sexual misconduct offenses and one count of aggravated kidnapping. The kidnapping conviction added 186 months to his sentence. Mr. Sumpter’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and his state post-conviction motion was unsuccessful. Kansas has appealed to the 10th Circuit. The aggravated kidnapping conviction and sentence were vacated by the United States District Court in Kansas when the court partially granted the 2254 petition and concluded Mr. Sumpter had been denied effective assistance of counsel as to the kidnapping conviction. Mr. Sumpter was convicted of forcefully confining the accuser, yet trial counsel failed to assert the defense, long established in Kansas case law, that the alleged forced confinement was not independent of the offense of attempted rape. The defendant followed the accuser to her car and attempted to sexually assault her in the car before the victim was able to force him out of the car. Defense counsel thus should have argued that there was no forced confinement independent of the alleged attempted sexual assault. The amicus brief argues that the failure of counsel to present this long-recognized defense to the kidnapping charge resulted in an unconstitutional application of the Kansas kidnapping statute. Mr. Sumpter was convicted of kidnapping without any determination that the alleged forceful confinement was independent of the attempted sexual assault. Therefore, the district court order vacating the kidnapping conviction should be affirmed.

Board member Tim O'Toole's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding proposed changes to the laws governing public corruption charges, as outlined in the Clean Up Government Act of 2011 (H.R.2572).

Letter with the Heritage Foundation to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding prosecutions of public corruption and the changes proposed in the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act (S. 49, 2009).

In The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Criminal Division: People of the State of Illinois v. Church, Chase & Betterly

Memorandum of Law in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss The Consitutionally Vague Terrorism Charges in The Indictment

Argument: DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND SIX OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED INDICTMENT WHICH ARE BASED UPON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF “TERRORISM” AND “TERRORIST ACT” 

NACDL Director of White Collar Crime Policy Shana-Tara Regon's written testimony to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crims, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding concerns about enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act given the vagueness of the law's language and the possibility of misunderstanding what is and isn't legal under the statute.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioner and urging reversal.

Argument: The theft-of-honest-services statute¸18 U.S.C. §1346, is void for vagueness; also, the presumption of prejudice that arises from intense community hostility and pervasive adverse publicity cannot be rebutted through voir dire.

Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Federal Defenders, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, and Cato Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Despite this Court’s repeated efforts to divine a workable standard from the vague wording of ACCA’s residual clause, numerous circuit splits persist or have even deepened. The residual clause is unconstitutionally vague as to all possible predicates. ACCA’s imposition of a substantial, mandatory minimum sentence warrants heightened scrutiny. 

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

Argument: The Fifth Amendment’s due process clause requires a narrow interpretation of “without authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The District Court’s finding that venue was proper exceeds constitutional limitations and invites prosecutorial forum-shopping.

Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Center for Democracy & Technology, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Scholars in Support of Defendant-Appellant Gilberto Valle.

Argument: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) does not prohibit violations of computer use restrictions. The CFAA was meant to target “hacking,” not violations of computer use restrictions. This case presents a mere use restriction. The District Court’s broad reading of the CFAA renders it unconstitutionally vague. Corporate policies do not provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited. Allowing CFAA liability for mere use restrictions turns a vast number of ordinary individuals into criminals.

Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Argument: The lower courts erred by considering only the dictionary definition of the word ‘suicide’ and ignoring other important rules of statutory construction. The Appellate Division failed to consider whether its interpretation of the statute was consistent with legislative intent. The appellate division failed to construe the statute in accordance with the rule of lenity. In the alternative, the Appellate Division’s interpretation should be rejected because the assisted suicide statute, as applied to physician appellants, would be unconstitutionally vague.

Motions FYI Gerald F. Uelmen