Home

Amicus Briefs Filed

 

United States Supreme Court:  
 
Skakel v. Connecticut, cert. denied 127 S. Ct. 616 (2006) Supported the petitioner's claim that when a judicial construction of a criminal statute is Aunexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue@ it must not be applied retroactively. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert.
 
Gluzman v. United States, 154 F. 3d 49 (1998), cert. denied 526 U.S. 1020, 119 S. Ct. 1257, 143 L. Ed. 2d 353, (1999) Supported the petitioner's claim that the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994 was unconstitutional because it improperly federalized state domestic assault crimes. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert.

 

 
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit:
 
United States v. Thomas, 239 F.3d 163 (2001) supported challenge to constitutionally of the federal sentencing guidelines in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey. (This argument claimed that the Guidelines should not be applied mandatorily and presaged United States v. Booker, _______ U.S. _____(2005) by four years.) Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert and Roy Ward.
 
 
United States District Court, D.Conn.
 
United States v. Russell, 3:07cr31 (AHN)(unreported decision, brief filed July 2, 2007). Supported defendant=s argument that 18 U.S.C. ' ' 1512 (c)(1) and 1519 (Sarbanes Oxley Act) are unconstitutionally vague as applied to the conduct of an attorney in representation of his client, absent application of the United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995) nexus. Brief by Moira Buckley. 
 
 
Connecticut Supreme Court:
 
State v. Browne, SC 18065 (pending, following certification having been granted regarding the Appellate Court=s decision reported at ____________ Conn. _____ (2007)) Supports the prevailing defendant/appellee's claim that a plainly invalid search warrant does not satisfy the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment by referring to an affidavit that was not present at the search scene. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert.
 
State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (2007) Supported the defendant=s claim that a criminal defendant has a state constitutional right to challenge the legality of a search, Anotwithstanding the fact that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the subject of the search.@ Davis at ______________. Brief by Jon L. Schoenhorn and Conrad Ost Seifert.
 
State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (2007) Supported the defendant=s claim that courts should apply the Abeyond a reasonable doubt@ standard in pre-trial determinations of the voluntariness of confessions. Brief by Moira L. Buckley and Morgan P. Rueckert.
 
State v. Sawyer, 279 Conn. 331 (2006) Brief by Michael Fitzpatrick and Richard Emanuel.
 
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) Supported the defendant's claim that implementation of fairer and more modern eyewitness identification procedures is required. Brief by Michael A. Fitzpatrick, Tanina Rostain and Barry Scheck.
 
State v. Samuels, 273 Conn. 541 (2005). Brief by Jon L. Schoenhorn.
 
Missionary Society of Connecticut v. Board of Pardons and Paroles, 272 Conn. 647 (2005) Supported the Congregationalists' position seeking a temporary injunction staying the impending execution of Michael Ross. The Missionary Society claimed that it had standing and that the Board of Pardons ad hoc ruling which precluded all third parties from requesting a commutation hearing was arbitrary and capricious. The appeal was argued at an historic en banc hearing on Saturday, January 22, 2005. The trial court's decision which dismissed the Society's application for an order requiring the Board of Pardons to hold a commutation hearing was affirmed two days later on January 24, 2005. Michael Ross was executed on ___________, 2005. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert and Richard Emanuel.
 
In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 653 (2005)
In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 674 (2005)
In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 676 (2005)
            Amicus CCDLA filed a Petition in Support of a Writ of Habeus Corpus filed by Dan Ross, the Father and next friend of Michael Ross. Michael Ross was a death row inmate who successfully sought to withdraw his pending Appeals and actively sought to be executed by the State of Connecticut. His Father, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a Connecticut trial court seeking a stay of execution and a hearing on the inmate's competence to waive further postconviction proceedings. The court dismissed the petition. His Father appealed. In the Appellate proceedings, The Supreme Court was asked to consider a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error Dan Ross, as father and next friend of Michael Ross, and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error office of the chief public defender of the state of Connecticut, as next friend of Michael B. Ross, challenging the orders of the habeas court, entered on January 3, 2005. The trial court had previously dismissed their respective petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that: (1) the habeas petitions submitted by the plaintiffs in error on behalf of Michael Ross were not legitimate filings; and (2) the plaintiffs in error did not have standing to file the petitions. The Supreme Court sustained the Trial Court.   Brief by Edward J. Gavin.
 

State v. McCahill, 265 Conn. 437 (2003) Supported challenge to claimed exception to speedy trial statute. Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert.

 

State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492, 811 A. 2d 667 (2002) Supported separation of powers challenge to constitutionality of statute denying post-conviction bail.  Brief by Richard Emanuel.
 
State v. Welwood, 258 Conn. 425, 780 A. 2d 924 (2001) Supported challenge to proriety of charging defendant with criminal contempt for violation of probation after probationary term has expired and whether or not there is jurisdiction to pursue contempt. 
 
State v. Hernandez, 254 Conn. 659, 759 A. 2d 79 (2002) Trial court dismissed charges after state failed to disclose identity of informant when ordered to do so. Supported affirmance by Supreme Court. Brief by                                   .
 
State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 775 A. 2d 260 (2001 Supported claim of judicial vindictiveness due to imposition of more substantial sentence after defendant was unsuccessful in motion to suppress. Brief by                      .
 
State v. Vega, 259 Conn. 374, 788 A. 2d 1221 (2002), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 152, 154 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2002).    Supported indigent defendant=s right to conflict-free counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Brief by William B. Westcott.
 
State v. Patterson, 236 Conn. 561, 674 A. 2d 416 (1996). Supported argument that criminal defendant has constitutional right to pre-sentence investigation before sentence imposed. Brief by Craig A. Raabe and Dina S. Wenger.
 
State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284, 677 A. 2d 917 (1996). Supported challenge to constancy of accusation doctrine regarding testimony in sexual assault trials. Brief by Jon L. Schoenhorn.
 
Washington v. Meachum, 238 Conn. 692 (1996). Brief by Norman B. Teague and Syrie Davis Fried.
 
Ullmann v. State, 230 Conn. 698, 647 A. 2d 324 (1994). Supported challenge to constitutionally of holding criminal defense attorney in contempt for refusing to testify about client information. Brief by Glenn E. Coe and Andrew Houlding.
 
State v. Barton, 219 Conn. 529, 594 A. 2d 917 (1992). Argued constitutionally of Atotality of the circumstances@ search warrant test under Article I, ' 7 of Connecticut Constitution. Brief by Jacob D. Zeldes, Paul F. Thomas and Shelley R. Sadin.
 

 

Connecticut Appellate Court:
 
Gillogly v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 61 Conn. App. 523, 764 A. 2d 1283 (2001). Brief by Conrad Ost Seifert.
 
Marshall v. Delponte, 27 Conn. App. 346, 606 A. 2d 716 (1992). Brief by Brian M. O'Connell, Norman B. Teague and Russell S. Palmer.