Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners.

Argument: The dramatic impact that Marsy’s Law would have on Pennsylvania’s criminal justice system is not mere speculation. Other states have adopted nearly identically vague and broad constitutional amendments, which have resulted in substantial harm not only to criminal defendants, but also to the administration of the criminal justice system. This amicus brief summarizes the substantial burdens that Marsy’s Law has imposed in other states where it has gone into effect. The right “to reasonable and timely notice of and to be present at all public proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct” has cost counties and states millions of dollars and congested court dockets. Marsy’s Law states have struggled to deal with the financial impact of the notice provision. The docket congestion caused by the notice provision has caused intolerable delays in proceedings. The right “to reasonable protection from the accused or any person acting on behalf of the accused” has led to absurd results in pretrial release decisions. The right to “full and timely restitution” will take money from the courts. The codification of “respect for the victim’s…privacy” and the right “to reasonable protection from the accused” has made it more difficult for law enforcement to solve crimes and left the public lacking critical information about criminal activity.

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding proposed changes to sentencing and other aspects of human trafficking offenses, as addressed in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (H.R. 181) and Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation (SAVE) Act of 2015 (H.R. 285).

Coalition letter to members of the Senate regarding Senator Patrick Leahy's amendment to the proposed Cybersecurity Act (S. 3414), which incorporates expanded violations and penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).

In The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Criminal Division: People of the State of Illinois v. Church, Chase & Betterly

Memorandum of Law in Support of Joint Motion to Dismiss The Consitutionally Vague Terrorism Charges in The Indictment

Argument: DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND SIX OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED INDICTMENT WHICH ARE BASED UPON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF “TERRORISM” AND “TERRORIST ACT” 

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Evelyn Sineneng-Smith and Reversal of the Judgment Below.

Argument: The statute of conviction is overbroad under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defect. The statute of conviction is overbroad, reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. Any limiting construction should not be used to cure the First Amendment defects, as doing so would invade the legislative domain. The statute of conviction is void for vagueness under the First Amendment, and a limiting construction should not be used to cure the constitutional vagueness problem. The Court should find that the statute of conviction contains an implicit “willful” or “knowing” mens rearequirement, but nevertheless should conclude that such a mens rea element would not cure the statute of its serious constitutional problems.