Expanding the Reach of Criminal Laws Without Increasing the Burdens on the Prosecution

Many voices have sounded the alarm and are mobilizing to untangle the complex web of laws, rules, and culture that authorize coercive plea bargaining practices.

We tell ourselves that we are protected from government abuse by a system of jury trials in which jurors decide guilt or innocence and judges determine sentences. What is the reality? We have abandoned the system of public jury trials established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of a shadow system of guilty pleas driven by the logic of prosecutorial power.

The Sixth Amendment states that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . trial, by an impartial jury...."  The focus on jury impartiality was rooted in the desire to preserve individual liberty in the face of a tyranical government.

Statement Of David Patton, Executive Director and Attorney-in-Charge Federal Defenders of New York (Southern & Eastern Districts) Before the Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force United States House of Representatives at a Hearing Entitled “Agency Perspectives”

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding legislation to address the judicial discretion that allows for factoring into sentencing conduct acquitted by a jury, as proposed in Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (H.R. 1621).

An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Letter to members of the Judicial Conference regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused individual the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. However, these rights have been strained by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brief of National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support Of Respondent. 

Argument: Depriving the defendant of the right to decide whether to plead guilty unconstitutionally undermines his autonomy interest. The decision to plead guilty is entrusted to the defendant alone and thus implicates his fundamental autonomy interest. The requirement that a guilty plea be knowing and voluntary safeguards the defendant’s autonomy interest. The failure to inform the defendant of each element of the offense to which he is pleading guilty requires vacatur of the plea. Permitting the court to impose punishment based on hypothetical guilty pleas would be a dangerous constitutional innovation. Given that the Framers’ vision of a system of jury trials has already been displaced by pleas, the Court should not accept anything less than informed and voluntary pleas. 

Brief Amici Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Aoki Center for Critical Race and Nation Studies in Support of Defendant-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc. 

Argument: In violation of his constitutional rights guaranteeing notice, due process, and trial by jury, Melvyn Gear was convicted of possessing a firearm while holding a non-immigrant visa because the jury was not instructed on that most subjective of the crime’s elements:  knowing possession.  Contrary to four circuits around the country, the Ninth Circuit panel applied a cramped and compressed plain error standard that failed to properly protect the surpassing constitutional rights at stake. The brief amici was filed to bring those decisions and their reasoning to the Ninth Circuit’s attention.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: In this case, the Eleventh Circuit, applying plain error review, reaffirmed Petitioner’s conviction. This followed an intervening change in law, which required the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt an additional element of the crime. Although the government had not introduced evidence of this element at trial, the Eleventh Circuit nonetheless affirmed Petitioner’s conviction—which it did only by going beyond the trial evidence. This is contrary to the purpose of plain error review, which is only to correct manifest injustices, and raises fairness concerns, as numerous criminal defendants have been foreclosed from introducing evidence on plain error review. The decision below further raises Constitutional concerns under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. It violates the defendant’s due process rights by allowing judges to make a decision of guilt on an element of the crime—a decision reserved for the jury alone.

Brief For Amicus Curiae The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support Of Petitioner.

Argument: The Armed Career Criminal Act’s “occasions” requirement has led to a deluge of unconstitutional factfinding by sentencing courts. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that under the Sixth Amendment, only a jury—not a judge—may find facts that increase a maximum penalty, except for the simple fact of a prior conviction. But in analyzing whether a defendant’s three predicate offenses occurred on “occasions different from one another,” as they must have to support a penalty under the statute, lower courts around the country routinely make detailed factual findings regarding the timing, location, and conduct underlying each prior conviction, with no apparent jury involvement. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear in other statutory contexts that such findings are unconstitutional. Because there is no reason why the Sixth Amendment would apply any differently to the “occasions” requirement, it is likely that every sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act has been imposed unconstitutionally.

Coalition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding legislation to address the judicial discretion that allows for factoring into sentencing conduct acquitted by a jury, as proposed in Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S. 601).