Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Blakely v. Washington, 530 U.S. 466 (2004), is a “watershed” rule of criminal procedure which exempts it from the retroactivity bar of Teague v. Lane, because a sentencing fact which increases the statutory maximum must be found beyond a reasonable doubt, which goes to the heart of the guilt/innocence determination.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Immigrant Defense Project in support the of the petition for writ of certiorari. 

Argument: The question is exceptionally important because of the deepening conflict over the retroactivity of Padilla v. Kentucky imposes severe consequences on countless non-citizens and causes confusion in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

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

Argument: If the Court finds that the general duty to comply with the legislative purpose of SORNA provided the Attorney General an “intelligible principle” for deciding whether to make the law retroactive, then the Court must decide whether that standard satisfies the Constitutional non-delegation rule in a criminal context. Appellant’s case presents the constitutional delegation question in stark form, and because of the date of his prior convictions and the time period when he failed to register, the issue cannot be avoided on statutory grounds. The complete and standardless Congressional assignment to the Attorney General of authority to decide the extent of SORNA’s retroactivity violates any Constitutional standard limiting delegation of the legislative power. When the Legislature empowers an Executive agency, and in particular the Attorney General, to decide what conduct will constitute a crime, Congress must “meaningfully constrain” the exercise of that delegated authority.

Brief Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, in support of defendants-appellants.

Argument: The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive purposeless punishments now rejected in American laws and practices, as are pre-FSA crack sentences. Society’s standards reflected in modern legislation and practices demonstrate a national consensus against pre-FSA crack sentences. There is no evident legitimate penological justification for preventing only less serious, low quality crack offenders from being eligible for sentencing modification of pre-FSA sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The sentence modification provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Guideline policy statements provide an effective and appropriate means to address and remedy the Eighth Amendment concerns in this case. For the foregoing reasons, the Eighth Amendment provides support for the Blewett panel ruling, and this Court need not and should not order rehearing en banc of that decision.

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

Argument: Prosecutors and defendants must be able to rely on the present state of substantive law in their decision-making processes.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae on Behalf of Petitioners (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller applies retroactively.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Edwin Ike Mares (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).

Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. Appellee’s mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional even in light of Wyoming’s post-millersentencing amendments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Brief for Amici Curiae the New York State Defenders Association, Inc., New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., including Immigrant Defense Project (complete list of amici is available in appendix to brief linked above).

Argument: The advice regarding deportation is critical to an immigrant defendant. The professional standards supporting this duty in New York pre-date the 1996 immigration laws. The rule articulated in Padilla v. Kentucky applies under New York law to remedy Padilla violations pertaining to uninformed pleas entered in New York at least from the passage of AEDPA and IIRIRA in 1996 onward. Fundamental fairness demands that the courthouse doors remain open, at least, to Padilla claims arising from pleas entered after AEDPA and IIRIRA, not merely for those cases that were pending when Padilla was decided or came after Padilla.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae In Support of Appellants Carp, Davis and Eliason (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Any life without parole sentences for a juvenile who did not kill or intend to kill is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. Intent to kill cannot be inferred when a juvenile is convicted of felony murder. Any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. All juveniles convicted of murder in Michigan are entitled to individualized sentences that presumptively provide a meaningful opportunity for release.

Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).

Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.

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

Argument: A Hobbs Act conspiracy charge requires proof of an agreement to obtain property from a third party. The unambiguous meaning of the text enacted by Congress delineates the outer bounds of the Hobbs Act offense. The Court should not construe the Hobbs Act to intrude upon areas traditionally reserved to state law.

Brief of Northwestern University School of Law’s Children and Family Justice Center and Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Petitioner (full list of amici in appendix).

Argument: In recognizing that “children are different” from adults, Miller v. Alabama represents a transformation in law, practice, and constitutional jurisprudence relating to the punishment of children, thus warranting retroactive application. In the pre-Miller era of the juvenile “super-predator,” juvenile penalties often reflected the now-discredited premise that children who had committed serious crimes were irredeemable. Miller v. Alabama reboot: even the most serious child offenders are now considered potentially redeemable. Death is no longer uniquely different under the Eighth Amendment; after Miller v. Alabama, children are different too. Because of its transformative nature, Miller must be applied retroactively. As a matter of equity and evenhanded justice, Miller v. Alabama should apply retroactively.

Brief of FAMM and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on petition for a writ of certiorari)

Argument: The question that has divided the circuits is of critical importance to thousands of federal prisoners. The decision below gravely misreads the federal post-conviction relief statute. The Eighth Circuit’s rule contradicts the plain text of § 2244. The Eighth Circuit’s rule leads to arbitrary results. The severity of the consequences to petitioner and many others similarly situated – and the disutility of their sentences to society – underline the urgency of granting review.

Brief of Amici Curiae Immigrant Defense Project, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner’s Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

Argument: The majority’s new retroactivity standard will make it virtually impossible for defense counsel to provide constitutionally adequate advice under Padilla. The panel and the board should have applied the Montgomery Ward retroactivity test in the petitioner’s case. Under the Montgomery Ward factors, Matter of Leal cannot be applied retroactively to Mr. Olivas-Motta.