Showing 1 - 4 of 4 results
Statement to House Subcommittees on Crime and Criminal Justice on Waco Misconduct [TE] (July 1995)
Board member Tim Evans' statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and to the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice, regarding the 1993 confrontation between Branch Davidians and law enforcement in Waco, TX.
Gathers and Mitchell v. United States
Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in support of appellants and urging reversal.
Argument: The obligations to not use false testimony and to correct any such false testimony belongs to the prosecutor and cannot be waived. Even if the Due Process protection against false testimony may be waived, the indispensable function it serves requires that the waiver standard be substantially more demanding than the standard the trial court utilized below. The Superior Court misapplied this court’s holding in Bruce. Trial counsel did not know that Det. Had testified falsely. There was no tactical decision to permit the false testimony to go unchallenged.
Thomas v. Westbrooks
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae Supporting Reversal.
Argument: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a criminal defendant is entitled to a new trial when the prosecution suppresses evidence that it provided remuneration to its key witness for her cooperation, the key witness testifies that the prosecution did not provide remuneration, and the prosecution fails to correct the witness' false testimony. When suppressed evidence of the prosecutor's use of a paid witness is uncovered and reveals that the paid witness lied under oath, the case unquestionably presents itself in a different light than the evidence presented at trial.The prosecutor's suppression of favorable evidence coupled with the introduction of false testimony has always been considered a Due Process violation that warrants a new trial. The age of exoneration has demonstrated that Brady violations and false testimony are often the culprits in wrongful convictions.
United States v. Valdez
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
Argument: The panel’s decision is inconsistent with background principles of forfeiture, congressional intent, Supreme Court precedent, and constitutional limitations. Neither Section 924(D) nor Section 853(P) permits entry of a money judgment as “substitute property” subject to forfeiture