Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, FAMM, and Federal Public Defenders and Community Defenders for the Judicial Districts of the Third Circuit in Support of Appellant and Reversal

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation as Amici Curiae In Support of Appellant

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; American Civil Liberties Foundations of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, In Support of Defendant-Appellee.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc. 

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in New Jersey

Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and FAMM in Support of Defendant/Appellee’s Petition for Rehearing and/or Rehearing En Banc.

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in U.S. Virgin Islands

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Pennsylvania

Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in Delaware

Brief of Amici Curiae the Cato Institute, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, and Due Process Institute in Support of Petitioner-Appellant.

Wright and his co-defendants were indicted and tried on both conflict of interest and bribery theories of honest services fraud. The district and circuit courts both denied bail pending appeal while Skilling was pending. After Skilling the parties renewed the motion, the government did not object, and the Third Circuit ordered bail pending appeal. On appeal, the defense pursued both a judgment of acquittal and a new trial. Among other arguments, the government asserted that any errors with regard to honest services fraud should not disrupt the conviction on the traditional mail fraud count.

Defendants were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on multiple fraud counts, including one count of conspiracy to defraud the public of James’ honest services contrary to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346. The Third Circuit reversed the convictions on the honest services conspiracy count and affirmed the convictions on the other counts.

Panarella pled guilty to a one-count superseding information, which charged him as an accessory after the fact to honest services wire fraud based on a theory of undisclosed self-dealing.  Panarella exhausted his direct appellate rights and, in light of the Skilling decision, petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), the All Writs Act, on this one count. On July 29, 2011, the Court granted Panarella's petition.

Defendant was convicted on both bribery and conflict of interest theories. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. The defendant filed a § 2255 petition pre-Skilling and the government responded post-Skilling. The government has argued that the Skilling issue was clear enough to require counsel to raise it pre-Skilling, but not so clear as to render counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to do so. Mariano has decided not to pursue the § 2255 further.

Lynch was convicted for conspiracy to commit honest services fraud. He filed a Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The Government opposed his motion. Since those filings, his supervised release terminated and thus he supplemented his Motion to Vacate with a Motion for Writ of Coram Nobis. The District Court granted Lynch's motions for writ of error coram nobis and to vacate judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The court therefore vacated and set aside his conviction and sentence, and also ordered the government to repay all fines Lynch paid.