Showing 1 - 2 of 2 results
United States v. Harmon
Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in Support of Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
Argument: This Court can and should grant relief where the Government's misconduct prevents the grand jury from exercising its discretionary function. The panel's shielding of AUSA Cheng's identity demonstrates the non-existent deterrence presented by extra-judicial remedies.
Tennessee v. Decosimo
Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Filed In Support of the Defendant/Appellee
Argument: The Court should apply strict scrutiny and hold that Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-10-413(f), which requires the payment of a $250 fee when the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (“TBI”) provides expert proof to local law enforcement agencies in the form of a blood alcohol or drug concentration test. is unconstitutional on substantive due process grounds. That fee is assessed only when the expert proof provided by the TBI results in a conviction for certain crimes, including DUI. Applying strict scrutiny, this Court should find that section 55-10-413(f) is more restrictive than is necessary to achieve the State’s interest in funding the TBI’s forensic testing operation. Because section 55-10-413(f) encroaches upon the criminal defendant’s fundamental right to a fair trial, strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review. Section 55-10-413(f) cannot withstand strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to serve the State’s interest in funding the forensic testing performed by the TBI. Even if strict scrutiny does not apply, none of the State’s arguments demonstrate that section 55-10-413(f) comports with due process principles. Partiality on the part of the TBI forensic scientists is not consistent with due process. The conviction-dependent, contingency-fee system in this case is different than the administrative system of assessing civil penalties at issue in Marshall v. Jerrico. The TBI’s pecuniary interest in obtaining criminal convictions is sufficient to sustain the due process claim. The Court of Criminal Appeals properly suppressed the forensic evidence without requiring a showing of actual bias.