Learn how you can help ensure that the principle of due process endures this crisis
Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
In this amicus brief, we urged the Supreme Court to review whether the Sixth Amendment requires juries—not judges—to determine the facts necessary to impose criminal forfeiture. The brief argues that criminal forfeiture is a form of punishment that can deprive individuals of significant property interests and therefore should be subject to the same constitutional jury-trial protections that apply to other criminal penalties.
Filed with Washington Legal Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and National Association For Public Defense.
We thank William Havemann, Kristina Alekseyeva, Natalie Nogueira, Samantha Ilagan, and Jonathan Wampler of Milbank LLP for their pro bono work on this issue.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Several courts of appeals, including the Eighth Circuit, authorize district courts to bar cross-examination about the specifics of mandatory minimum sentences. In this amicus brief, we argue this violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness; juries should have the opportunity to hear the full extent of a cooperating witness’ motive to favor the prosecution.
Petition for certiorari denied on January 10, 2022.
Due Process Institute thanks John Cline for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellant
2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
This brief highlights the criminal justice system’s lack of commitment to guarantee an individual’s right to a speedy trial. In a relatively simple criminal case, it took three years for the accused to reach trial. Speedy trials are fundamental to ensure norms in our justice system and prevent unfair pressures on those accused; it is past time for courts to enforce this right.
Filed with Cato Institute.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that the right to a speedy trial was not violated. You can read the decision here.
Due Process Institute also thanks Timothy O’Toole of Miller & Chevalier for his pro bono work on this case.
Brief in Support of Appellant
5th Circuit Court of Appeals
TOPICS: trial penalty
This case–perhaps the first of its kind but not the last–asks the court to consider if the government has pursued a “trial penalty” (adding charges and recommending a higher sentence) against a defendant who exercised her right to trial.
The United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with Due Process Institute that federal Circuit courts have a duty to determine whether a district court sentenced an individual more harshly because they went to trial instead of pleading guilty. You can read the court’s full opinion here.
Due Process Institute thanks Jonathan Marcus and Michael McIntosh of DC’s Skadden office for their amicus support on this matter.
Brief in Support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
TOPICS: speedy trials
When a juror denies having “unknown” (implied) bias during a material question on voir dire, should a new trial be granted? We ask the Court to consider the plain text reading of McDonough and find that implied bias, like “known” bias, is unmistakably within its reach; a juror’s denial should not defeat a clear showing of bias. Protecting the right to impartial jury trials is fundamental to maintaining due process.
Filed with Cato Institute and National Association for Public Defense.
Petition for certiorari denied February, 22 2021.
Due Process Institute also thanks L. Barrett Boss, Kara L. Kapp, Catherine C. Yun, Samuel M. Deau, and Cozen O’Connor for their pro bono work on this issue.