Showing 1 - 5 of 5 results
Alasaad v. Wolf
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.
Grubbs v. Safir
Brief of Amici Curiae [New York County Lawyers’ Association, New York State Defenders Association, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association for Public Defense, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion Seeking Enforcement of this Court’s Orders, Modified Injunctive Relief, and a Finding of Civil Contempt.
Argument: The Sixth Amendment guarantees open and uninhibited attorney-client communications. The pre-arraignment consultation between attorney and client is a critical meeting with broad consequences. The presence of cameras in attorney-client consultation booths prevents free and open communication in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the settlement order. There is no justification for the presence of cameras in attorney-client consultation booths.
First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles, et al. v. National Security Agency, et al.
Brief of Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Argument: Wholesale collection of telephony records by the government deprives clients of their right to counsel by vitiating the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney files. The strong protections afforded the confidentiality of legal work include the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and the duty of confidentiality. Bulk seizure violates confidentiality rules and impairs the right to a defense. The government’s current practices eviscerate FISA’s relevance and minimization requirements.
County of Nevada v. Superior Court
Application of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and National Associat[ion] of Criminal Defense Lawyers to Appear as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Real Parties in Interest Pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 8.200(c), and Brief in Support of Real Parties.
Argument: California's statutory scheme, which includes Business and Professions Code 6068, requires lawyers to communicate with clients on matters of importance to the representation. The opportunity for direct, person-to-person communication unencumbered by the appearance of barriers is a matter of importance to the frank exchange of confidential communications. The Court should avoid encouraging the erosion of the right of access to counsel based on trivial concerns and on mere preference or convenience for jailers.
Grubbs v. Brown
Brief of Amici Curiae New York State Defenders Association, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association for Public Defense, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defender Services, and New York Criminal Bar Association in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Argument: The District Court’s ruling minimizes and overlooks the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of open and uninhibited attorney-client communications. The decision overlooks the critical pre-arraignment consultation between attorney and client. Adequate representation in arraignments requires an attorney to build trust with his client within minutes of their first meeting. The advice provided during pre-arraignment consultation informs decisions with far-reaching consequences. The decisions disregards how the presence of video cameras in attorney-client consultation booths prevents free and open communication in violation of attorney’s ethical obligations, the Sixth Amendment and the 1999 Settlement Order. The decision ignores the legitimate fears of attorneys and their clients that the recordings may be abused. The decision gives inadequate justification for the presence of video cameras in attorney-client consultation booths.