Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal.

Argument: The Fifth Circuit panel’s interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, the aggravated identity theft statute, expands the bounds of the statute beyond what Congress intended.  The interpretation is a result of the overcriminalization of the statute and prosecutorial overreach, and if upheld, threatens to transform the statute to include run-of-the-mill fraudsters, “stray[ing] far afield from the conduct targeted by Congress” under the statute.  United States. v. Berroa, 856 F.3d 141, 156 (1st Cir. 2017).  The panel construed the statute to encompass a healthcare provider manager’s use of a patient’s information to bill Medicaid for services that were provided to that patient but misrepresented during the billing process.  Such an interpretation—which criminalizes conduct beyond real, classic identity theft (i.e., impersonating someone or stealing his identity)—is at odds with the legislative purpose to punish identity thieves and the common-sense reading of the statute. 

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.

One misapplication of criminal law is the overly broad expansion of criminal statutes by prosecutors, such as the statute involved in the case of Yates v. United States.

President Gerald Goldstein's statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding making false statements to the government, in relation to the Government Accountability Act of 1995 (H.R. 1678) and Hubbard v. U.S. 115 S.Ct. 1754 (1995).

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

Argument: A state government's right to regulate traffic flow does not qualify as "money or property" under this Court's applications of the mail fraud statute. The deception charged in this case -- lying about the motivation for state governmental policy -- is not cognizable as fraud under the mail fraud statute.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and New York Council of Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: A defendant does not "obtain" property by depriving the victim of his "right to control" property. The decision below exemplifies a broader pattern of overcriminalization through expansive interpretation of federal criminal laws. The Second Circuit's reading of the federal criminal fraud statutes conflicts with the rule of lenity and clear statement principles.