Law Commons^™

Brief Of The National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Mcwilliams V. Dunn (U.S. March 6, 2017) (No. 16-5294)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

We submit this brief to make three important points. First, Ake itself clearly and unambiguously held as a matter of due process that indigent capital defendants must be provided with independent expert assistance upon a reasonable showing of need. The Court was unanimous on this point and swept aside aging precedent that had held provision of neutral assistance was adequate.

Second, Ake was hardly a revolutionary decision. As the Court noted, many states already provided expert assistance. In the first six years after Ake, numerous states explicitly held independent expert assistance must be provided upon an adequate showing of need. …

Brief Of The National Association For Public Defense, Et Al As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Christeson V. Roper (U.S. January 30, 2017) (No. 16-7730)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This case involves federal courts doubling down on the effective denial of counsel to a severely mentally impaired capital habeas petitioner on the eve of his execution, thereby preventing the full and fair litigation of an issue that demands this Court’s attention: the role played by a petitioner’s mental impairment in determining whether equitable tolling applies to the statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. This Court should grant the petition to address whether the denial of adequate funding in this case constituted a constructive denial of the right to counsel required by the capital representation statute, 18 U.S.C. …

Brief Of The Ethics Bureau At Yale Law School Et Al. As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Office Of The Public Defender V. Lakicevic, 215 So.3d 112 (2017) (No. 16- 1371)., Janet Moore

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The vigilant defense of the attorney-client privilege by the courts is critical to preserving the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship. Accordingly, the Appellees’ attempt here to secure the client information from the client’s lawyer must be rejected with the same ardor as if the Appellees sought to swashbuckler through the lawyer’s entire file. If the principle that lawyer-client communications are sacrosanct were compromised in this case, the lessons from such a decision would eviscerate the attorney-client privilege in its entirety. Amici hope that their analysis will provide the Court with all of the constitutional, legal and practical reasons it needs …