Showing 1 - 5 of 5 results
United States v. Martinez-Figueroa
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones.
Argument: I am CJA counsel appointed by the Court to represent my client, Defendant Eddie MartinezFigueroa, who has been charged in a multi-defendant Indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. I submit this Memorandum in support of the Defendant’s request for a Protective Order to compel the Government to provide discovery and particularization of those electronically recorded intercepts which allegedly involve him directly.
My client is 26 years old and by virtue of a prior drug conviction is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones. Through a seven month investigation involving the DEA, the New York State Police, the United States Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies, the Government employed video and personal surveillance, GPS tracking, monitoring of pen registers, and four separate Title III eavesdropping warrants, targeting four different cell phones and capturing both oral and texting communications.
Betterman v. Montana
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: Guilt-determination and sentencing historically were inseparable and speedy trial protections apply to both. The interests set forth in Barker require protection at sentencing. Extended pre-sentence incarceration is oppressive. Delays in the sentencing phases of a trial exacerbate anxiety and concern. Delays in the sentencing phase of trial impair defendants' abilities to exercise their legal rights with the courts. The Due Process Clause insufficiently protects the rights guaranteed by the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.