Recent Amicus Brief
Counsel Advice on Immigration Consequences of Plea Addressed in ABA Amicus Brief
Upon recommendation of the Criminal Justice Section, on June 2, 2009, the ABA filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner in Padilla v. Kentucky (No. 08-651). The brief asked the Court to take into consideration the ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Guilty Pleas, Defense Function, and Collateral Sanctions, as well as the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct in determining whether counsel’s failure to correctly advise Petitioner about the mandatory immigration consequences of a guilty plea constitutes grounds for withdrawal of the plea. The brief was drafted by Gabriel J. Chin, Daniel J. Leffell, Margaret Colgate Love, and Peter S. Margulies. For a copy of the brief, CLICK HERE .
Other Amicus Briefs
ABA Asks Supreme Court to Consider Unanimous Verdicts
Upon recommendation of the Criminal Justice Section, on July 7, 2008 the ABA filed an amicus brief in Lee v. Louisiana (No. 07-1523) asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari to consider whether the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows a criminal conviction based on a non-unanimous jury verdict. The brief, drafted by Thomas Goldstein of Akin, Gump, relies heavily on the ABA policy calling for unanimous jury verdicts set forth in the ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Trial by Jury (Standard 15-1.1) and the ABA Jury Principles (Principle 4.B). For a copy of the brief, click here .
ABA Asks High Court to Support Law Requiring Citations (Virgina v. Moore)
In an amicus brief filed on December 10, 2007, the ABA asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Pretrial Release in deciding whether an arrest for a minor offense without aggravating circumstances is unreasonable when there is probable cause but also a state law prohibiting such arrests. Amicus participation had been requested by the Criminal Justice Section, and the brief was drafted by Prof. Rory Little, Co-Chair of the Section’s Amicus Briefs Committee, and his colleagues Peter Drobac and Jeffrey Mikoni at McDermott Will & Emery LLP.
The Virginia law at issue was based upon the Pretrial Release Standards that call for citations in lieu of arrest for minor offenses in the absence of danger or likelihood of non-appearance. Despite the law, the respondent in the case had been arrested for driving with a suspended license. A search incident to the arrest yielded drugs, and the respondent was subsequently convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Upon request of the state of Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the state Supreme Court decision affirming the appellate court’s reversal of the conviction. In supporting the respondent, the ABA brief informs the Court about the Pretrial Release Standards and describes them as representing “a realistic, balanced, and reasonable policy.” For a copy of the brief, click here .
In an amicus brief filed on February 2, 2006, the ABA asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to bar federal lawsuits by prisoners on grounds that they have not complied with all procedural requirements for administrative relief crafted by prison officials. The ABA amicus brief in Woodford v. Ngo (No. 05-416) argued that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act's requirement that prisoners exhaust administrative remedies before bringing federal claims does not justify a “judicially-created procedural default rule.” The brief cited several ABA policies, including the ABA Legal Status of Prisoners Standards’ call for "free and meaningful access to the judicial process" for prisoners.
The Section's application for the amicus brief emanated from Prof. Lynn Branham, a member and former Chair of the Section's Corrections and Sentencing Committee, and was supported by that Committee and the Juvenile Justice Committee. The brief was drafted by Eric Maier of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Click here to access the brief.
Note: On June 22, 2006, the Court reversed judgment and remanded the case. The ABA brief was cited in the dissent.
Evidence of "Actual Innocence" in Death Penalty Cases ( House v. Bell )
On September 22, 2005, the ABA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in House v. Bell (No. 04-8990). The case involves evidence of “actual innocence” that came to light following petitioner’s conviction and sentence to death. While the Sixth Circuit unanimously agreed that the defendant had presented a “colorable claim” of actual innocence supported by DNA evidence, expert testimony, and evidence of confessions by the actual murderer, it split 8-7 in ruling that his “colorable claim” nevertheless did not meet the applicable standards for recognition of “actual innocence” claims in a federal habeas corpus action. In advising the Court about the Association’s nine “innocence” resolutions, its “biological evidence principles,” and its capital habeas corpus litigation policies, the ABA brief pointed out that these materials support standards for “actual innocence” habeas corpus cases that are sufficiently robust to accommodate the various evidentiary and systemic shortcomings revealed by “actual innocence” cases – systemic shortcomings that were simply not well-appreciated at the time the cases on which the majority relied were decided. Amicus Committee Co-Chair Rory Little, Hastings Law School, drafted the ABA brief with the assistance of Seth Waxman and Sanket Bulsara of Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale and Dorr. For a copy, click here.
Note: On June 12, 2006, the case was reversed and remanded.
Appellate Counsel for Indigent Defendants ( Halbert v. Michigan )
On June 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Michigan law that barred state-paid legal assistance for indigent defendants who plead guilty, but then want to appeal. The court held that Antonio Halbert had a right to a lawyer. In 2001 Mr. Halbert pleaded no contest to two child molestation charges and received up to 30 years in prison. He requested a state appointed lawyer to contest the calculation of his sentence but was denied. At the Section's request, the ABA filed an amicus brief in the case. Drafted by Paul Wolfson of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the brief cited the ABA Standards on Criminal Appeals in arguing that indigent criminal defendants who seek to pursue a first appeal should have appointed counsel. Click here to access the brief.
Note: The case was decided June 23, 2005. Click below to access the opinion.
Halbert v. Michigan (No. 03-10198) opinion