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

Argument: United States v. Harris, 959 F.2d 246 (D.C. Cir. 1992) is no longer good law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. O’Brien, 130 S.Ct. 2169 (2010), which held that the “machinegun” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) is not a “sentencing enhancement” but an element of the offense of “using or carrying” a machinegun in connection with a crime of violence; although Sec. 924 is silent as to whether knowledge that the firearm is capable of fully-automatic fire is a prerequisite for conviction under the statute, the court must presume mens rea is required where a statutory provision triggers a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Libertarian Law Council, and 25 law professors from across the United States.

Argument: Florida’s strict liability felony drug law runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and is inconsistent with centuries of common law.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Calvert Institute for Policy Research, and 38 law professors from across the United States.

Argument: Florida’s strict liability felony drug law runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is inconsistent with centuries of common law, sound public policy, and the norms of international legal systems and principles generally embraced by the United States.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Calvert Institute for Policy Research, the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, the Libertarian Law Council, and 38 law professors from across the United States.

Argument: Florida’s strict liability felony drug law runs afoul of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and is inconsistent with centuries of common law. In addition, the state cannot shift the burden of proof to the defendant to disprove an essential element of an offense.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner and Urging Reversal.

Argument: This Court has repeatedly interpreted general causal terms in civil statutes to require both actual cause and proximate cause. The rule of lenity requires doubts about “results from” to be resolved in defendant’s favor.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae.

Argument: The Constitution prohibits strict liability offenses except in the rarest of circumstances. Strict liability offenses are generally disfavored. This case is not the rare case. The expansion of strict liability crime stretches prosecutorial discretion to the breaking point. There has been an unwarranted expansion of federal criminal liability and, in particular, strict liability crimes. Expansion of federal criminal law especially in the area of strict liability crimes dangerously grants prosecutors too much discretion. This case is the poster child for prosecutorial overreach. Strict liability crimes distort the plea bargaining process.

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Argument: Conviction under § 353 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with a culpable state of mind. Section 353 must be construed to require mental culpability. There is no indication of clear legislative intent to make § 353 a strict liability offense. Current legislative initiatives reflect a consensus that § 353 has a mens rea requirement. The appellate term’s reliance on A.M.L. § 43 is misplaced because § 353 is not a public welfare and regulatory law. The trial court’s failure to provide a proper jury instruction was not harmless error and warrants reversal of Mr. Basile’s conviction.