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

Argument:  The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) applies to “an officer, director, employee, or agent” of a domestic concern or issuer.  The Government argues that “agent” means a common-law agent, but that reading of the statute is entirely at odds with both the FCPA’s plain text and the Act’s legislative history.  Congress intended for “agent” to mean a specific type of individual:  a foreign intermediary used to pay bribes.  If “agent” meant “common-law agent,” as the Government says, there would have been no need for Congress to specify “officer” or “employee”—both are “common-law agents.”  The legislative history also demonstrates that Congress had bribe-paying foreign “consultants” or “intermediaries” in mind when it crafted the FCPA to cover “agents.”  Reading the word “agent” broadly would raise serious concerns about extraterritorial application that Congress specifically sought to avoid.  Such a reading would also run afoul of well-established principles of lenity.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners. 

Argument: This case asks whether a reasonable jury could find that police officers use excessive force when they kill a shackled and handcuffed arrestee inside of a jail cell by compression asphyxiation. The Eighth Circuit’s decision departs from an otherwise uniform national rule established by all other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments categorically prohibit the asphyxiation of a restrained arrestee or pre-trial detainee who poses no threat to officers or others. The national rule applied outside of the Eighth Circuit is the only rule that conforms to the Supreme Court’s cases governing the use of deadly force, is deeply rooted in the Fourth Amendment and prevailing common-law rules, and is consistent with statutes and law enforcement policies already in effect across American jurisdictions. Categorically prohibiting the use of deadly force, such as compression asphyxia, on restrained citizens is essential to the fair administration of criminal justice. 

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

Argument: Harmless error is an inadequate standard for review in cases of pervasive and far-reaching prosecutorial misconduct. The present case included an invasion and use of an accused’s attorney-client privileged conversations and attorney work product privileged documents. Because of the toxic effect on the proceedings, alleged prosecutorial misconduct cannot be adequately measured by the evidence against the accused in harmless error analysis. Rather, when prosecutorial misconduct is obviously illegal or forms a pattern of unlawful behavior it so offends the Due Process clause that the court should treat it as a structural error. Amici assert the prosecutorial misconduct in the present case is analogous to the “interested prosecutor” a recognized structural error. Amici argue the Court should treat the present prosecutorial misconduct as a structural error and dismiss the case. Such a result serves both the interests of the defendant in a fair proceeding and the public in seeing justice done.

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

Argument: Certiorari is warranted because the Third Circuit’s decision prohibits a whole class of crack-cocaine offenders from being eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act while identically situated defendants in other circuits may be resentenced.  The Third Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with Congress’s goal of providing relief to low-level drug offenders because it excludes the lowest-level offenders and those with uncertain drug amounts from resentencing while allowing those who possessed greater amounts of crack cocaine to obtain relief.  Defendants convicted for possessing lower-quantities of crack cocaine could receive substantial sentence reductions even though they remain eligible for the same sentence.  The Third Circuit’s rule frustrates Congress’s goal of providing relief to the disproportionate number of Black Americans incarcerated for crack-cocaine offenses.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers provides amicus assistance on the federal and state level in those cases that present issues of importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and the criminal justice system as a whole. A selection of NACDL's amicus briefs that address the Fourth Amendment are offered below. 

Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance.

Argument: The government's practice of warrantlessly searching travelers' electronic devices at the border violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. For many criminal defense lawyers, their work compels them to cross the border with their devices, which they use as their virtual law office. The attorney-client privilege and the Constitution protect the information on those devices. Requiring the government to get a warrant for device searches at the border would trigger the judicial supervision that is necessary to protect that information and associated rights.

Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendant-Petitioner. 

Argument: Mr. Lucas is held in a county jail without bail pending trial on a charge of first degree murder. In this original proceeding, the Colorado Supreme Court will determine whether the trial erred in denying Mr. Lucas’ motion to require the sheriff to keep professional consultation visits confidential. The Sheriff has a policy to inform the district attorney of the professional consultation visits received by Mr. Lucas. The amicus brief argues that the right to prepare a defense in secret is a necessary corollary to a defendant’s constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, and the effective assistance of counsel. When the prosecution prematurely learns the identity of consulting defense experts, the prosecution gains an unfair advantage in trial preparation, rendering the trial fundamentally unfair. The Sheriff can only provide this information when the defendant is incarcerated pretrial, denying equal protection to indigent and otherwise non-bondable defendants. An express recognition that defendants must be granted a fair opportunity to prepare their defense with sufficient secrecy to protect their pretrial strategy from disclosure is consistent with reciprocal discovery rules which require disclose of defense experts only if they will be called as trial witnesses and with the attorney work-product doctrine. Defense lawyers will also be rendered constitutionally ineffective if forced to alter strategies for consulting with experts solely because a defendant is jailed pretrial.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: NACDL and CACJ join to support a petition to the United States Supreme Court to review a California State Appellate Court decision expanding the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to the home in all misdemeanor cases. The case involved a domestic dispute in which the wife viewed the husband as potentially suicidal and called officers.  While the petitioner/husband was taken for examination (and later released), the officers entered the home and seized petitioner’s guns.  Authorities refused to return the guns until petitioner sued for numerous constitutional violations.  The trial court dismissed the suit on caretaking grounds, as did the court of appeals.  The amicus brief, following an extensive review of warrantless entries in misdemeanor cases (especially “failure to obey” cases) details numerous instances in which grievous and unnecessary harm resulted from the warrantless entry.

Brief of Amici Curiae Public Defender Service and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.

Argument: First, the D.C. COVID-19 Emergency Act authorized compassionate release for "extraordinary and compelling" reasons not specifically enumerated in the statute, including a prisoner's heightened vulnerability to COVID-19. Second, courts must consider all relevant evidence in assessing the defendant's vulnerability to COVID-19, regardless of whether the defendant's particular medical conditions have been identified by the CDC as clear risk factors for severe illness from COVID-19. Third, good time credit counts toward the percentage of the sentence served under the statute. Fourth, rulings on compassionate release motions are subject to ordinary appellate review for abuse of discretion.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Non-unanimous juries are fundamentally different and less deliberative than the Sixth Amendment requires. Non-unanimous juries also fundamentally skew the decision of whether to exercise the jury trial right. The pernicious racial origins of the non-unanimity rule further undermine the Sixth Amendment jury trial right.

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

Argument: Like Gideon v. Wainwright (the only case the Supreme Court has recognized as falling within Teague v. Lane’s watershed rule exception), Ramos v. Louisiana is a watershed rule and therefore, under Teague v. Lane, applies retroactivity to cases on collateral federal review.  Ramos, like Gideon, overturned a badly flawed, errant precedent to restore a bedrock Sixth Amendment right.  Ramos, like Gideon also increases the accuracy of convictions, when accuracy is properly understood to refer to the fairness of the process and the likelihood that the defendant received procedural protections guaranteed by the Constitution, rather than the likelihood that actual guilt or innocence is determined.

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.

Argument: Appellee Raia’s Petition for Rehearing addresses the discretion of a district court to excuse the 30-day waiting period for compassionate release under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A). On April 2, 2020, the Panel declined to remand this case under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1, stating that remand would be “futile.” In so ruling, the Panel necessarily concluded that the 30-day waiting period cannot be excused or waived. That conclusion was inconsistent with both Supreme Court and Circuit precedent. The ruling creates inconsistency in the Circuit’s treatment of all claims-processing rules, and undermines courts’ equitable authority in a wide range of cases. The30-day waiting period is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. Courts may excuse noncompliance with that rule absent an express prohibition on doing so. Remand is therefore not “futile.” The Panel’s sua sponte conclusion to the contrary was error. Rehearing should be granted to correct the Panel’s error and confirm that judges are empowered to address “extraordinary and compelling” circumstances even when they arise exigently. At a minimum, the Panel should grant rehearing and order full briefing on this important issue, which was neither decided below nor fully briefed on appeal.

Brief of Amici Curiae the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Foundation, Due Process Institute, R Street Institute, and Americans for Prosperity Foundation in Support of Defendant/Cross-Appellee.

Argument: The text of §403(b) applies the sentencing amendments to §924(c) at resentencing. The text of §403(b), not the savings statute, governs application of the sentencing amendments. Background principles confirm that §403 applies at resentencing. The government’s rule serves no purpose. The government’s contrary arguments fail. Congress enacted the First Step Act to reform §924(c). In accordance with the text, context, and purpose of the First Step Act, this Court should hold that the sentencing amendments in §403 apply to sentences imposed after the First Step Act’s effective date, including at a de novo resentencing.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent-Appellant Facebook.

Argument: This Court should grant direct appellate review in this case because the public interest in preserving work product protection and attorney-client privilege is of such importance that justice requires a final determination by this Court. In compelling Facebook to produce information generated in the course of an attorney-led investigation, the Superior Court failed to properly apply the work product and attorney-client privilege protections that attached to those materials. The work product doctrine protects from disclosure information generated in the course of an attorney-led investigation that is conducted “because of” anticipated litigation, and an attorney’s sorting of information during a privileged investigation cannot be discoverable by his adversary. And the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between lawyers and their clients even if the client publicly discloses the existence of an attorney-led investigation. In rejecting these principles, the Superior Court created dangerous uncertainty in the attorney-client relationship.

Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices in Support of Appellant Julio Cesar Ortega Campoverde.

Argument: Mr. Ortega Campoverde is challenging the terms of his immigration detention, which include a bond he cannot afford that was set without considering his ability to pay. He argues that the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Immigration and Nationality Act require immigration judges in bond hearings to consider both an immigrant detainee’s ability to pay and alternative conditions of release. The amicus brief reviews evidence from the criminal pretrial system to demonstrate that nonmonetary alternatives to detention successfully address the goals of assuring a defendant’s appearance in court and protecting public safety, without overburdening individual liberty. It also reviews the ways in which detention impairs case outcomes, and long-term outcomes for individuals, unrelated to the merits.