Showing 1 - 3 of 3 results
United States v. Marshall
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Andracos Marshall's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.
Argument: This case presents an issue of exceptional importance because it denies all defendants the use of innocent assets to hire counsel if they have been subject to any post-conviction forfeiture. The published panel opinion conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in Luis v. United States.
Luis v. United States
Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: The government's attempt to restrain untainted assets circumvents an essential limit on the forfeiture power. The government's interest in forfeiture does not outweigh a defendant's right to spend her own money on counsel of choice.
Magluta v. United States
Brief of Criminal Defense Attorneys (NACDL and FACDL) as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (On Petition for Writ of Certiorari).
Argument: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel demands a strict construction of section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)’s heightened intent requirement. The reasoning of Caplin & Drysdale and Monsanto is flawed. In those cases, the Court construed the Sixth Amendment as offering no constitutional protection to the payment of counsel of choice with the proceeds of alleged, but not yet proven, criminal conduct. This case represents an ideal vehicle to determine whether the validity of the decisions should be reconsidered, as Justice Kagan, in Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct.1083, 112 (2016) (Kagan, J., dissenting), suggested might now be appropriate.