Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

Brief Of Professor Laura K. Donohue As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Fbi V. Fazaga, No. 20-828 (U.S. Aug. 6, 2021), Laura K. Donohue

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Amicus submits this brief in support of neither party to provide the Court with background on the origins and evolution of the state-secrets privilege. The English and American cases decided before United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), as well as the decisions before and after the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), produce several observations that may help the Court to resolve this case.

First, both Reynolds and earlier English and American case law treat state secrets as an evidentiary privilege rather than a substantive rule of decision. As with other privileges, …

On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondent, Gregory P. Warger, V. Randy D. Shauers, Susan Crump, Bennett Gershman, Victor Gold, Paul F. Rothstein, Ben Trachtenberg

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

Petitioner asks this Court to interpret Fed. R. Evid. 606(b) as permitting statements made by jurors during deliberations to be admitted to support a motion for a new trial. The practical consequences of petitioner’s rule would be significant and problematic, not only fundamentally altering the purpose and practice of voir dire, but also providing a new, fact driven, basis for post-trial motions. These expanded proceedings would place substantial additional burdens of courts, lawyers and jurors alike. In light of existing mechanisms to ensure juror honesty and impartiality, petitioner’s rule would disrupt a well-functioning system for little to no benefit.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit, Brief Of Law Professors Paul F. Rothstein, Et. Al., Office Of The President V. Office Of Independent Counsel, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Allen, Margaret A. Berger, William J. Bridge, Paul C. Giannelli, Stephen Gillers, Laird C. Kirkpatrick, David P. Leonard, Miguel A. Mendez, Roger C. Park, Myrna S. Raeder, John W. Reed, Mark Reutlinger, Leo M. Romero, Stephen A. Saltzburg, Peter Tillers

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

This Court should grant review not only because this is a case of national importance and prominence, but also because the decision below is a conspicuous departure from settled principles of evidence law. The panel majority concluded that communications between government lawyers and government officials are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, at least when those communications are sought by a federal grand jury. That conclusion conflicts with the predominant common-law understanding that the attorney-client privilege applies to government entities and that where the privilege applies, it is absolute (i.e., it protects against disclosure in all types of legal and …