Preparing Your Client & Yourself for the Good, Bad, and Unfathomable with Richard S. Jaffe and Special Guest, Randal Padgett, Death Row Exoneree [Engage & Exchange Series] 

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

Argument: [T]his case raises fundamental constitutional issues implicating Appellant’s right to have his Fifth Amendment right to Brady material and his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in securing evidence from MAB’s [the complainant] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] Alien File [A-File] produced for an in camera judicial review. That was necessary to protect Appellant’s right to confront his accuser, to include impeaching her at trial. Finally, this case implicates Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. NACDL is not alleging ineffective assistance of counsel [IAC], but rather that Appellant’s Trial Defense Counsel [TDC] was improperly thwarted by the government’s opposing his request for an immigration law expert to assist the defense, which the military judge denied, as well as access to her A-File.

The "Free Flow of lnformation Act" (S. 448; H.R. 985) … was reintroduced in the 111th Congress. Soon after this legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress (S. 2035; H.R. 2102), NACDL formed its Reporters' Shield Legislation Task Force to study the proposed law and ascertain the potential implications for the integrity and fairness of our criminal justice system. I write ... to explain our specific concerns with the language of the most recent versions and to articulate our view that any legislation of this nature not be used to undermine the criminal justice process.

Brady v. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules, Orders, and Policies, Federal Judicial Center (2007)

A guide on Brady v. Maryland prepared by the Special Litigation Division of the Public Defender Services of District of Columbia. It is both a quick reference guide and a starting point for correspondence or pleading addressing the government’s Brady obligations. 

Motion for the production of testimony put before the grand jury in support of the charges of drug distribution, or conspiracy to distribute drugs with the intent to commit rape. This testimony is sought to “avoid a possible injustice”: Nunez’s status as the subject of a prosecution that is not supported by any evidence.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA: USA v. Licciardi & Nunez

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant Randell G. Shelton, Jr., Reversal, and Remand.

Argument: This case involves an important question of criminal law: Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, what is the appropriate remedy when a government agent acts in shocking bad faith, intentionally “wiping” his government-issued, undercover laptop computer instead of delivering it for a forensic evaluation as instructed? The Court below found that the agent acted in bad faith and violated Appellant’s due process rights, but nevertheless fashioned a remedy short of dismissal. The remedy given by the Court wasn’t nearly sufficient to (a) satisfy the defendant’s right to seek and discover potentially exculpatory evidence; (b) punish the government for wrongful conduct in this case, or (c) deter wrongful conduct in future cases by similarly situated government agents or entities. This issue strikes at the heart of the due process guarantee and the fairness of the justice system. Dismissal is the only remedy that will appropriately redress the government’s acts of bad faith and violations of Appellant’s due process rights.

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

Argument: NACDL submits that the Brady violation in this case is not an isolated aberration, but rather is evidence of a systemic problem in military jurisprudence. Military prosecutors have a legal and ethical duty to seek justice, not convictions, and if trial counsel has a bona fide question as to whether or not something is or is not Brady material, it should be submitted to the military judge for resolution. Absent that, then any violation of Brady will be presumed to be prejudicial absent the government’s demonstration to the contrary by the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.