Showing 1 - 4 of 4 results
United States v. Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer
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.
United States v. Slatten
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellants, Supporting Reversal.
Argument: The district court's expansive, extraterritorial interpretation of the Military Extrajudicial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) on which each of the convictions below rests, violates the presumption against extraterritoriality, is contrary to the plain language of the statute, and gave rise to precisely the sort of problems inherent in extraterritorial prosecutions. The district court's expansive interpretation of the venue statute is not supported by the plain language of the statute, permitted unrestrictive forum shopping, and exceeded constitutional venue limitations. The district court's decision to deny the appellants' motion for a new trial based on a key trial witness's new statement, which fundamentally contradicted both that witness's trial testimony and the government's theory of the case at trial, was an abuse of discretion. The prosecution of Mr. Slatten for first degree murder, only after he successfully defeated the government in this court on lesser charges, raises troubling questions of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Caroni v. United States
Brief of Amici Curiae of Associations of Criminal Defense Attorneys in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari) (California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York Council of Defense Lawyers, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers).
Argument: This Court should grant review to clarify when harmless error will justify denial of the right to a jury determination on a contested essential element.