Amicus Briefs

CACJ’S AMICUS CURIAE

Over 45 Years of Published Cases

The Amicus Committee and CACJ's volunteer brief writers offer arguments that have proven to be of significance to the courts and to the defense bar, resulting in many significant decisions of reviewing courts. On occasion CACJ helps to defray the cost of producing the briefing, as the work of the Amicus Committee is an important part of CACJ's contributions.

To reach the CACJ Amicus Committee, please email: amicus@cacj.org

Stephen Dunkle, Amicus Committee Chair
John Philipsborn, Amicus Committee Vice Chair

CACJ has had three ‘principal’ Chairs of the Amicus Committee since 1973: Ephraim Margolin, who served in that position from the beginning of the organization until 1991; John Philipsborn, who had been the Chair, or Co-Chair of the Committee starting in 1992 and is now the Committee Vice Chair; and our current Chair Stephen Dunkle who had served first as Co-Chair in 2016 and has been the Chair for the past three years. Other Committee members including Dennis Riordan and Chuck Weisselberg served as Co-Chairs at various times.

The majority of the briefs filed by CACJ have been written by the two persons who chaired the Amicus Committee for the first 43 years--Ephraim Margolin and John Philipsborn. But while the amicus chairs have been the organization’s primary brief writers, it must be underscored that many other lawyers have written valuable and often the most significant briefs on important cases for CACJ including Cliff Gardner, Larry Gibbs, Dennis Riordan, Chuck Sevilla, Richard Such, and Chuck Weisselberg. CACJ has voiced its views in many of the most pressing legal issues of the day on behalf of the accused and supported criminal defense lawyers to better enable them to do their work.

CACJ welcomes assistance from lawyers willing to volunteer their time to write briefs.

Recent Cases


McDonough v Smith, United States Supreme Court, June 2019: The United States Supreme Court handed down a rare reversal of the Second Circuit in an important civil rights case for those seeking damages because of a prosecution based on fabricated evidence. The Second Circuit had ruled that the statute of limitations runs from the time that the aggrieved person discovers the fabrication--regardless of whether the underlying criminal case was still ongoing or not. CACJ and a number of organizations including Brooklyn Defender Services argued it was fundamentally unfair to force relief to be sought that early in the process, and that the plaintiff in such a case could wait until the criminal case had terminated in his or her favor before filing a civil rights action. The Court agreed that where the theory of liability involves malicious prosecution, imposing an early statute of limitations was not in keeping with the concept of allowing opportunity for redress. The case has significance for those falsely or fraudulently accused, including those with innocence claims whose opportunity for relief would (and in certain historical cases did) run out if the Second Circuit's reasoning prevailed. CACJ and fellow amici were represented by lawyers from Arnold & Porter and Kaye Scholer in Washington, D.C..
Read the court syllabus here.
June, 2019
The Los Angeles Public Defender's Office is seeking review of a ruling that limits the prerogative that the same court had provided, several years ago, to a trial court to review the validity of Fourth Amendment seizure issues at time of misdemeanor arraignment under Penal Code Section 991. The case appeared headed for appellate review once before with support from the San Francisco Public Defender. J.T. Philipsborn on letter brief for CACJ.
Read the brief here.
March, 2019
CACJ has filed a letter brief requesting that the California Supreme Court either grant review to or depublish the Martinez decision by the Second Appellate District, 31 Cal. App. 5th 719. Martinez is one of the SB 1437 cases in which a reviewing case has shown only a grudging interpretation of SB 1437 permitting petitions for relief from murder convictions suffered by other than actual killers under specified circumstances. Several Court of Appeal rulings have, as argued in the letter, seemingly undermined the purpose of SB 1437, which was enacted thanks to efforts by CACJ and others. The letter brief was co-authored by Cliff Gardner and Eric Multhaup, and was submitted by Steve Dunkle and John Philipsborn.
Read the brief here.
March, 2019
CACJ has joined with several other organizations including NACDL in urging the Ninth Circuit to consider whether persons claiming the right to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment who were released from custody on that basis can seek violation of civil rights based damages regardless of whether they raised actual innocence claims in a habeas corpus proceeding, or whether they entered no contest pleas as part of the resolution of their cases during the litigation of their cases. On the latter issue especially, since a number of persons claiming actual innocence have been freed on condition of the entry of a no contest plea, this is a case of concern to those seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Donald Falk of Mayer Brown took the lead for CACJ and NACDL.
Read the brief here.
March, 2019
McDonough v Smith (U.S. Supreme Court) CACJ joined a number of organizations, including Brooklyn Defender Services and many others, in a brief attacking the current procedure under which an individual suing for civil rights damages under a theory of unlawful fabrication of evidence in a criminal case has to file as soon as the individual 'learns about' the fabrication. The brief argues that this rule is unfair and unworkable. Lawyers from Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. on brief. Steve Dunkle and John Philipsborn reviewed the case and the brief for CACJ
Read the Brief here
March, 2019
CACJ submitted an amicus brief in the People v Cooper case. This week Governor Jerry Brown exercised his authority to grant review of this capital case. We look forward to the Governor taking further actions on cases before he leaves office next month.

2018
24 Cal.App.5th 50 (Restitution for non-economic damages is available to certain victims of child sex abuse.)

2018
4 Cal.5th 658 (The provision of the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crimes and Innocence Protection Act which requires a defendant to submit a cheek swab DNA sample does not violate the defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment or California Constitution.)

2018
CACJ has filed a brief in support of the State Public Defender's argument that Penal Code Section 1018 mandating that the accused in a capital case have counsel of record, and consent of that counsel, to plead guilty is a constitutionally valid statute that promotes public policy in favor of exercising care in the litigation of capital cases. Andrea Asaro of OSPD for the appellant. J.T. Philipsborn on brief for CACJ
Amicus Application Amicus Brief
2018
In this litigation pending before the California Supreme Court, CACJ has filed a supplemental brief explaining why it supports Real Party Touchstone's arguments in favor of the creation of procedures for individuals charged with crimes in California courts to be able to procure access to stored electronic media from companies like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat (to name a few) notwithstanding the federal Stored Communications Act. Don Landis briefed the matter in CACJ's initial brief. J.T. Philipsborn on brief on the supplemental brief.
Read the brief here
2018
CACJ is joined in an amicus brief filed in the United States Supreme Court by Mark Thompson and other lawyers at Washington, D.C.'s Crowell and Moring on behalf of several organizations including CACJ. CACJ's amicus committee chair, Steve Dunkle, and vice chair John Philipsborn, were both involved in the drafting process and contributed material to demonstrate California's interest in the litigation that asks the Court to recognize that there is no exception to the warrant requirement that would be permit a warrantless arrest of persons who are in the doorway on a home. The case addresses the argument that there is a doorway exception to the warrant requirement.
Read the brief here
2018
CACJ has filed a letter brief supporting the Orange County Public Defender's petition for review of a published Court of Appeal ruling that denied the accused in a criminal case access to files pertinent to him that were part of a juvenile court proceeding. The Los Angeles Public Defender and CPDA also filed letter briefs. Steve Dunkle and John Philipsborn on brief for CACJ.
Read the brief here
2017
CACJ joined the NACDL Death Penalty Committee in a brief filed in the Second Circuit in a pending capital case, United States v. Fell, in which the Circuit is considering whether to uphold a trial court ruling that the Crawford rule applies to penalty evidence, and should result in a co-defendant's statement to police being excluded at the penalty trial. CACJ Amicus Co-Chair John Philipsborn and California based Michael Burt are counsel of record for Donald Fell before the Second Circuit, and in the trial court. John Mills of San Francisco wrote the amicus brief for CACJ and NACDL.
Read the brief here.
2017
3 Cal.5th 347 (Proposition 47's definition of “unreasonable risk to public safety” does not apply to Proposition 36.)
Read the brief here.
2017
CACJ has filed a letter brief in the California Supreme Court supporting Stephen Greenberg's well crafted and extensive argument on the failure of California reviewing courts--including the California Supreme Court--to follow existing standards of review, particularly the standard applicable to errors of constitutional dimension. John T. Philipsborn on the letter brief.
Read more on the brief here
2017
This week, CACJ and allies filed an Amicus Brief on Constitutional protections of the 4th Amendment and civil forfeiture.CACJ has been active on due process protections and supported recent legislation, SB 443, which requires that a defendant be convicted of an underlying crime before cash or property can be permanently seized. The law took effect this year.
Read more on the brief here
2017
This case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff’s (ALADS) challenge to a trial court order allowing the Sheriff’s Department to inform the District Attorney’s Office that there may be exculpatory or impeachment material in specific deputies’ personnel files. CACJ jointly filed a brief with the ACLU Southern California, CPDA and Dignity and Power Now in support of real parties, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Jim McDonnell and the County of Los Angeles. The brief argues that the Brady procedure approved by the trial court is lawful and the sort of “laudably established procedure” approved of by the California Supreme Court in People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 721. Benjamin N. Gluck and Naeun Rim of Bird, Marella, et al. and Peter J. Eliasberg Melanie R.P. Ochoa of ACLU Southern California, for amici, with John Philipsborn and Steve Dunkle appearing for CACJ.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2017
This is a case in which the Petitioner is asking the California Supreme Court to find that Proposition 66, the ballot initiative which was proposed to counter any proposal to repeal the death penalty in California, is invalid. The challenge is made on the grounds that the initiative interferes with the jurisdiction of the courts, violates the single subject rule for propositions, violates the separation of powers and renders the death penalty system in California unconstitutional. The brief was jointly filed by CACJ and Death Penalty Focus. Robert Sanger and Steve Dunkle on the brief.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2017
This is a case in which the Petitioner is asking the State Supreme Court to consider whether a criminal defendant is entitled to obtain electronic records by suboena duces tecum prior to trial. The questions before the court are: (1) Did the Court of Appeal properly conclude that defendants are not entitled to pretrial access to records in the possession of Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) (18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) and People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117? (2) Does an order barring pretrial access to the requested records violate defendants' right to compulsory process and confrontation under the Sixth Amendment or their due process right to a fair trial? (3) Should this court limit or overrule People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117? CACJ previously filed an amicus brief addressing these questions. The court invited supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the SCA should be construed to apply to only those communications that were, when sent, configured to be private - e.g., restricted to "followers" or "friends" - and not to communications that were, when sent, configured to be public, and hence generally accessible to the public. Don Landis on the brief for CACJ.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2017
CACJ joined NACDL in urging the granting of certiorari to a case that was litigated from California courts into the Ninth Circuit, based in part on the allegation that the trial court had erroneously dismissed a holdout juror who was inclined towards voting for an acquittal. The concern addressed by amici was that the Ninth Circuit had deferred entirely to a California appellate court’s finding, unsupported in the trial record, that it was juror bias that provided a basis for the removal. The challenge here was not only to the violation of the right to trial by jury through trial court interference with the deliberations, but also error in the Ninth Circuit which allowed a state appellate court factual determination to provide the basis for the eventual decision-making which was error under the state’s appellate procedures. The USSC denied the petition. Timothy Simone, John Grimm and Elizabeth Bonner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis in Washington, D.C. represented CACJ and NACDL.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2017
CACJ, in a brief that was drafted by a team from Ropes and Gray in Boston headed by Kirsten Mayer and contributed to by CACJ amicus chairs John Philipsborn and Steve Dunkle, has asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case that raises the question of when, if ever, a trial court can remove a sitting juror based on the trial court's view that there is ground for removal especially where the removal of the juror has a coercive effect to the rest of the jury.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2016
CACJ joined with other criminal defense associations in submitting to the United States Supreme Court a brief supporting a grant of certiorari in Caroni v. US. The case is asking if it is a violation of Due Process for a court to direct a verdict in favor of the government on an essential element, thereby denying the accused the right to trial by jury on all elements.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2016
CACJ has joined with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and a number of other organizations, in submitting an Amicus brief in the case of In re Patterson. CACJ has previously argued that defendants in criminal cases must be fully advised of potential adverse immigration consequences prior to entering a plea, and as they consider their legal options. It is critical for the defense bar to be fully aware of this obligation, and the need for reviewing courts to properly consider the prejudice of failures to address immigration consequences in an effective manner. Although this case is still in litigation, CACJ has previously briefed this issue and renews its support for ensuring that adverse immigration consequences are properly dealt with. CACJ thanks Cody Harris and the Keker & Van Nest firm in San Francisco for its work on this case.
Read the Amicus Brief here.
2016
244 Cal.App.4th 1318 (A sentencing finding that a defendant’s drug possession was not solely for personal use can be made by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence.)

2016
Adventures in Litigating Attorney-Inmate Visiting By Stephen Munkelt I recently had the great honor and privilege of serving as lead counsel for a passionate group of defenders fighting for jail visits without glass barriers. The decision in County of Nevada v. Superior Court (Siegfried) (Filed 4/23/2015) 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 412 ( Siegfried) represents a significant win for our county, and for future litigation over attorney-client visits in jail or prison. There is now California authority that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment “includes the right to contact visits with counsel.”
1. COA Amicus for Inmates.pdf 2. COA Amicus for Sheriff.pdf 3. COA Answer to Amici - Inmates.pdf 4. COA Informal Opposition - Inmates.pdf 5. COA Opinion Published 5-14-15.pdf 6. COA Petition for Writ - County.pdf 7. COA Respon
2016
Don Landis, Monterey County Assistant Public Defender, has written a CACJ amicus brief addressing Facebook, Twitter, etc litigation--over the defense's ability to get material from media companies to prepare a defense. "CACJ will address what appears to be the elephant in the courtroom, but has not generated much legal analysis in these proceedings- whether a state court trial judge can rule on the federal constitutionality of a federal statue as applied in a state court criminal proceedings."
Please click here for the brief.
2015
Below is a brief on its way to the US Supreme Court in which CACJ is joining with a number of other defense counsel organizations. Their aim is to support the Supreme Court's consideration of whether the subject of restitution should be the subject of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, and individuals who are subject to restitution should be protected by greater formalities against the imposition of restitution.
Brief located here.
2015
"A man convicted of attempted murder contends his prosecutor, now a Monterey County judge, failed to turn over key evidence in his case. His attorneys are also asking that all local judges be barred from presiding over a hearing to investigate why a potentially exonerating videotape never surfaced at trial."
Read the Full Article here from the Monterey Herald. John Philipsborn has submitted an amicus brief in the case, located here.
2015
The case is before the Ninth Circuit for review of a District Judge's ruling that pervasive systemic delays invalidate the death penalty in California. CACJ, NACDL and MCLAP have filed a brief to address the implications of the delays in the appointment of counsel for death row inmates, and in doing so points to the chronic underfunding of the defense function in post-conviction death penalty litigation in California. Numerous other groups are expected to address other aspects of this litigation, and reasons for outlawing the death penalty as it is employed in California.
Please click here for the brief.
2015

Orcutt v Sup Ct Ltr Brief S223757 21215
2015

People v Toure Ltr Brief S223993 21015
2015

People v Brown Ltr Brief S222298 11215
2015
The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in Luis v. United States declaring federal forfeiture law in violation of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel if forfeiture includes untainted assets and restricts ability to hire counsel. Over the last 5 years, CACJ has joined with other criminal defense lawyer organizations in contesting the Government's broad approach to the use of forfeiture laws to affect the ability of individuals to retain counsel of choice, and to conduct a privately funded defense where possible. In 2014, Chief Justice Roberts mentioned CACJ's briefing attacking the degradation of the Sixth Amendment in the dissent that he filed in Kaley v. United States 571 U.S.___(2014). This decision also has language that reinforces the right to counsel and the need to properly fund indigent defense. CACJ thanks Courtney Linn of the Orrick firm for fine work on this case.
Click Here for the Amicus Brief Click Here for the Ruling
2014
CACJ mentioned by the Supreme Court Chief Justice CACJ was mentioned by name in Chief Justice's dissent in the opinion for Kaley vs US. He referenced the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by CACJ on Jul 3 2013, by John T. Philipsborn and John B. Owens, et al.
Read the Dissent by the Chief Justice Roberts Read the Amicus brief by John T. Philipsborn and John B. Owens, et all.
2013

United States Supreme Court


Luis v. United States (2016) 136 S.Ct. 1083 The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in Luis v. United States declaring federal forfeiture law in violation of the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel if forfeiture includes untainted assets and restricts ability to hire counsel. Over the last 5 years, CACJ has joined with other criminal defense lawyer organizations in contesting the Government's broad approach to the use of forfeiture laws to affect the ability of individuals to retain counsel of choice, and to conduct a privately funded defense where possible.
Kaley v. U.S. (2014) 571 U.S. 320. (A case considering the extent to which federal courts must focus on forfeiture proceedings which result in deprivation of the right to counsel or counsel of choice. CACJ co-authored the brief with Munger, Tolles, et al., led by attorney John Owens, and contributed to by J.T. Philipsborn.)
Harrington v. Richter (2011) 562 U.S. 86 (Chuck Weisselberg and others on brief for CACJ. CACJ joined in challenging what was contended to be an unreasonable application of the Strickland standard, and the doctrines of review that limited federal consideration of the California Supreme Court ruling in a death penalty habeas corpus case.)
Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600 (The result in this case is a tribute to the litigation by, and work of, then amicus co-chair Chuck Weisselberg, whose cases and scholarship are quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court decision. So are several of CACJ’s amicus cases. Chuck co-wrote a brief that was filed in the case, which stands for the proposition that there law enforcement cannot develop tactics to circumvent the Miranda rule.)
U.S. v. Patane (2004) 542 U.S. 630 (Chuck Weisselberg was on brief on behalf of CACJ in a combined ACLU, NACDL , CACJ brief in a case in which the question was whether it was violative of the Miranda rule, or the Fifth Amendment generally, for the physical evidence of a gun disclosed during an unmirandized interrogation to have been introduced into evidence. The impact of police training which was dignified in Missouri v. Seibert was not as great here, and the court upheld the conviction.)
Chavez v. Martinez (2003) 538 U.S. 760-CACJ joined other organizations in urging the Supreme Court to find that the Ninth Circuit correctly found that the accused’s rights were violated, and a civil rights action could be pursued, when a police officer interrogated a man who was receiving medical treatment after an incident was reported to the officer. The Ninth Circuit had ruled that qualified immunity for the officer did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed.
Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607. (The U.S. Supreme Court reversed our State Supreme Court at the urging of CACJ, and upheld the arguments made by Contra Costa County’s Alternate Defender Office that the Constitution bars application of a new state law that permitted otherwise time-barred criminal prosecutions. CACJ had initially litigated this issue and joined NACDL in briefing the issues. Martin Buchanan, Michael Dashjian and Jeff Fisher on brief)
U.S. v. Ruiz (2002) 536 U.S. 622 (Over CACJ’s strenuous objections, John Philipsborn and David Porter on brief as amicii, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that Brady rights do not survive the entry of a guilty plea, as they are primarily trial rights.)
U.S. v. Dickerson (2000) 530 U.S. 428 (Amicus co-chairs Philipsborn and Weisselberg filed two separate briefs in this case, though CACJ only appeared once. In a much-anticipated case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Miranda rule.)
Hendricks (1997) 521 U.S. 346 (Civil commitment of sexually violent predators held to satisfy substantive due process requirements.)
Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) 508 U.S. 476 (A statute that augments penalty because the victim is selected on the basis of race, religion, color, etc. does not offend the First Amendment. Such a motive is a relevant consideration in sentencing.)
R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992) 505 U.S. 377 (Ordinance banning "fighting words" not violative of the First Amendment--one of the first tests of "hate" crime statutes. Dennis Riordan on brief)
California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621 (When police are chasing a suspect, the latter is not seized until he either submits or is caught and any item disposed of before that time is not the product of a seizure, but rather constitutes abandoned property.)
Florida v. Riley (1989) 488 U.S. 445 (Observation by police in helicopter from altitude of 400 feet of contents of a partially covered greenhouse within the curtilage did not violate any reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment.)
California v. Superior Court of California (1987) 482 U.S. 400 (Extradition case holding that the asylum state may not inquire into the defenses or guilt or innocence of the charged party.)
Kolender v. Lawson (1983) 461 U.S. 352 (Statute requiring persons stopped with reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio, to provide "credible and reliable" identification or be guilty of a misdemeanor is void for vagueness on its face.)
United States v. Turkette (1981) 452 U.S. 576 (Held that RICO was not intended solely to protect legitimate business enterprises from infiltration by racketeers. RICO makes criminal the participation in an association which performs only illegal acts even if it has not infiltrated or attempted to infiltrate a legitimate enterprise.)
Chandler v. Florida (1981) 449 U.S. 560 (There is no absolute prohibition that prohibits television cameras from state court rooms.)
Michigan v. Defillippo (1979) 443 U.S. 31 (Ordinance, later held unconstitutional, made it a crime to refuse to identify oneself during a Terry stop. Arrest for failure to comply authorized the search incident to the arrest. This was a precursor to the good faith test--reliance on an ordinance.)
Goldberg v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 94 (A writing by a government lawyer relating to witness' testimony signed or adopted by witness is not work product and disclosure to the defense is required under the Jencks Act.)

Supreme Court of California


People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318 CACJ has filed a brief in support of the State Public Defender's argument that Penal Code Section 1018 mandating that the accused in a capital case have counsel of record, and consent of that counsel, to plead guilty is a constitutionally valid statute that promotes public policy in favor of exercising care in the litigation of capital cases. Andrea Asaro of OSPD for the appellant. J.T. Philipsborn on brief for CACJ
People v. Buza [4 Cal.5th 658] The provision of the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crimes and Innocence Protection Act which requires a defendant to submit a cheek swab DNA sample does not violate the defendant’s rights under the Fourth Amendment or California Constitution.
People v. Valencia [3 Cal.5th 347] Proposition 47's definition of “unreasonable risk to public safety” does not apply to Proposition 36.
Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Twitter Inc. v. San Francisco County Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1245 Don Landis, Monterey County Assistant Public Defender, has written a CACJ amicus brief addressing Facebook, Twitter, etc. litigation--over the defense's ability to get material from media companies to prepare a defense.
Briggs v. Jerry Brown (2017) 3 Cal.5th 808 This is a case in which the Petitioner is asking the California Supreme Court to find that Proposition 66, the ballot initiative which was proposed to counter any proposal to repeal the death penalty in California, is invalid. The challenge is made on the grounds that the initiative interferes with the jurisdiction of the courts, violates the single subject rule for propositions, violates the separation of powers and renders the death penalty system in California unconstitutional. The brief was jointly filed by CACJ and Death Penalty Focus. Robert Sanger and Steve Dunkle on the brief.
People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555 (CACJ, represented by the U.C. Davis Clinic, clinical professor Feinberg and J.T. Philipsborn on brief, successfully argued that effective representation in plea negotiations under California law includes appropriate consideration of immigration consequences, and reviewability in effectiveness on that issue.
People v. Johnson (2012) 53 Cal.4th 512 (CACJ joined in the argument about the level of competence necessary for self-representation. Larry Gibbs and Cliff Gardner on brief for CACJ.)
In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 420 (CACJ, Larry Gibbs, and Cliff Gardner on brief, addressed the state Supreme Court’s ruling seeking limitations on an exhaustion petition filed in a death penalty litigation, and attacking proposed sanctions on counsel of record.)
Maldonado v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1112 (CACJ appeared to urge the development of a procedure related to court-ordered examinations of the accused, including an array of ‘protective measures’ modeled on measures used in Federal litigation.)
People v. Hernandez (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1095 (Amicus co-chairs Ann Moorman and John Philipsborn co-wrote a brief joining in the challenge to the limitation on consultation between an attorney and the accused during trial.)
People v. Ary (2011) 51 Cal.4th 510 (CACJ appeared as an amicus addressing the proper standard for a retrospective assessment of competence.)
Galindo v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1 (In a brief written by Steve Dunkle, CACJ encouraged the disclosure of impeaching evidence prior to preliminary hearings.)
People v. Towne (2008) 44 Cal.4th 63 (Amicus co-chairs Chuck Weisselberg and John Philipsborn addressed the implications of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on sentencing issues in the California context.
People v. Nelson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1242 (CACJ’s brief, which was contributed to by Linda Robertson and Jennifer Friedman addressed the use of the product rule, DNA cold hit issues, and other DNA-related matters.)
Verdin v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1096 (CACJ assisted the Riverside Public Defender Office and appeared at oral argument to co-argue this case which, for a brief time, pointed to the supremacy of the statutory discovery procedure that did not, until the advent of P.C. 1054.3, permit extra-statutory discovery, including court ordered examinations of the accused.)
People v. Superior Court (Vidal) (2007) 40 Cal.4th 999 (Is a finding pertinent to intellectual disability in a death penalty case reviewable by writ? What kind of evidence is pertinent to the finding - CACJ participated in this case at both reviewing levels, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.)
In re Hawthorne (2005) 35 Cal 4th 40 (The State must adjudicate post-conviction claims of mental retardation according to the current state of the federal law, and under Penal Code Section 1376)
People v. Black (2005) 35 Cal 4th 1238 (Is the State sentencing system constitutional after Booker and Fan-Fan. Apparently, it is.)
People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999 (In a brief authored by Richard Such, CACJ addressed the question of what duress means under the California sexual assault laws.)
People v. Smith (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1207 (For the first time, the State Supreme Court dealt at some length with the question of how California might incorporate the federal definitions of outrageous governmental conduct, and sentencing entrapment, into its legal fabric. CACJ helped ensure that the Court kept the current California definitions intact and kept the question of sentencing entrapment open in the face of the State’s arguments to the contrary.)
People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 (This is a case in which the State Supreme Court issued a rare ‘win’ for defenders of the Fourth Amendment, ruling that probationers and parolees can only be searched pursuant to reasonable cause, and that a search cannot be justified where police do not know that a person is subject to a probation search condition. Kathy Kahn was on brief)
People v. Neal (2003) 31 Cal.4th 63 (Another one of Charles Weisselberg’s fine efforts on behalf of CACJ. The State Supreme Court noted its objection to police training to circumvent constitutional rights--a precursor to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Missouri v. Seibert in 2004, which commented at length about Chuck Weisselberg’s work, and CACJ litigation.)
People v. Superior Court (Ghilotti) (2002) 27 Cal.4th 888 (The first SVP case determined after California’s law reform efforts in the area. The case determined both the definitions, and procedures, to be used in seeking to release a person fitting the SVP label.)
People v. Storm (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1007 (Yet another of Chuck Weisselberg’s amicus efforts on an interrogation issue, which marked the slow shift of the State Supreme Court towards People v. Neal, described above.)
People v. Valencia (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1 (CACJ appeared through Cliff Gardner to question whether the pulling away of a window screen constituted a burglary.)
People v. Lloyd (2002) 27 Cal.4th 997 (A number of issues came out of this murder case prosecuted in Alameda County. CACJ’s appearance was for the purpose of asserting Lloyd’s privacy rights to telephone calls initiated from jail in the face of Prop 8.)
Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537 (This is the case in which the State Supreme Court, in the face of CACJ’s objections, allowed the initiative process to be used to ‘reform’ California’s juvenile justice laws through Proposition 22.)
People v. Mooc (2001-2002) 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Eric Multhup briefed this case seeking clarification of when a court can reject a defense request for discovery of records to prove that an officer provoked a fight that resulted in a battery conviction.)
In re Randy G (2001) 26 Cal.4th 556 (CACJ joined counsel of record to urge that the State Supreme Court find that there are indeed places on a high school campus where students do have an expectation of privacy.)
In re Resendiz (2001) 25 Cal.4th 230 (Thanks in part to the arguments of CACJ, the State Supreme Court refused to adopt a categorical rule barring ineffective assistance claims based on advice concerning the immigration consequences of a guilty plea.)
Alvarado v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1121 (Counsel of record had objected vehemently to PC 1054 discovery procedures deleting the names of victims/witnesses in cases in which crimes of violence were alleged to have taken place in a custodial setting. The State Supreme Court decided that a categorical rule denying the defense access to the information would not be upheld.)
People v. Frazer (1999) 21 Cal.4th 737 (This was the precursor to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Stogner v. California, outlining the retrospective extension of the statute of limitation for sex crimes, and reversing this case. Chuck Sevilla and John Philipsborn previewed the arguments that eventually won before the U.S. Supreme Court.)
People v. Tufunga (1999) 21 Cal.4th 935 (Part of the issue presented here involved the question of whether a claim-of-right instruction is available in a robbery case. While upholding the conviction, the court also noted that such an instruction would be available. Eric Multhau)
People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 424 (Michael Ogul litigated this case for CACJ, in which the question was whether the timing of the entry of a plea in a prior case was such that the accused could collaterally attack the voluntariness of that plea in the trial court.)
Daily Journal Corporation v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1117 (Can a trial court order the release of Grand Jury transcripts where the Penal Code would bar such release? The answer urged by CACJ was no--and the State Supreme Court agreed.)
In re Attorney Discipline System (1998) 19 Cal.4th 582 (Amicus chair John Philipsborn was one of several California lawyers invited to present argument on whether the State Supreme Court should order the maintenance of the attorney discipline system. Philipsborn argued that it should, because there needed to be some forum for the disciplining of errant state prosecutors.)
People v. Tillis (1998) 18 Cal.4th 284 (DA can impeach defense expert with prior drug incident without providing discovery first. CACJ pointed out the great advantage prosecutors have in obtaining such impeachment evidence through government records to which the defense does not have access.)
People v. Peevy (1998) 18 Cal.4th 284 (Upholds use of defendant’s statements even when made after intentional violation of Miranda by interrogating officers; noting also CACJ’s role as plaintiff in the 42 U.S.C. 1983 action,California Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts (C.D. Cal. 1996) 922 F. Supp. 327.)
People v. Pulido (1997) 15 Cal. 4th 713 (Dennis Riordan addressed the scope of complicity in robbery murder where one person, acting alone, kills in the perpetration of a robbery, and another person thereafter aids and abets the robber in the asportation and securing of the property taken, is the second person guilty of first degree murder under section 189? Answer: no.)
People v. Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 (Appellate court determined defense counsel was ineffective on direct appeal for failing to bring a motion to suppress evidence; reversed; this should be dealt with on a habeas corpus petition.)
People v. Eubanks (1997) 14 Cal.4th 580 (Where the victim of an alleged crime contributed financially to the costs of the district attorney's investigation; held, the district attorney may thereafter suffer from a disabling conflict of interest requiring recusal.)
Cowan v. Superior Court of Kern County (1996) 14 Cal.4th 367 (Holds that a defendant may waive a statute of limitations defense to a lesser included offense in order to get an instruction on that lesser crime; cited by dissent.)
People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal.4th 605 (The Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (STEP Act, enacted in 1988. (Pen. Code, @ 186.20 et seq.)
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)13 Cal.4th 497 (Trial court retains power to dismiss a strike in three strikes context.)
People v. Cuevas (1995) 12 Cal.4th 252 (Overrule Gould's holding that an out-of-court identification is in all cases insufficient by itself to sustain a conviction.)
People v. Horton (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1068 (Death case in which special circumstance set aside.)
People v. Superior Court (Aishman) (1995)10 Cal. 4th 735 (Penal Code section 22.75, one of California's "hate crimes" statutes provides for imposition of a sentence enhancement for felonies committed because of the victim's race, color, nationality, country of origin, ancestry, disability or sexual orientation, does not require specific intent.)
In re M. S. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 698 (Addressing various constitutional challenges to Penal Code sections 422.6 and 422.7, two of California's "hate crime" statutes, and upholding them.)
People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587 (Court reaffirms applicability of the Kelly-Frye standard in this state.)
People v. Whitfield (1994) 7 Cal.4th 437 (Implied malice murder held to exist in vehicular drunk driving homicide.)
Cummiskey v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1018 (multiple contentions regarding propriety of grand jury indictment procedures.)
Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282 (Analyzing Prop 115's many provisions under ex post facto.)
Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3d 336 (Overruling one section of Prop 115 which would have much of the California Constitution subservient to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. J.T. Philipsborn presented the winning argument on behalf of CACJ)
In re Christian S. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 768 (Holds that imperfect self-defense exists to defend against malice and permit voluntary manslaughter; cited for raising significant policy issues supporting the defense.)
People v. Colantuono (1994) 7 Cal.4th 206 (CACJ attempts to bring reason to a failed attempt to "hopefully eliminate the confusion on this issue which has developed throughout the courts of this state.")
People v. Mayfield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 853A (Two justices vote to grant rehearing based in part on CACJ’s amicus request to do so.)
People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179 (Holds that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to order "free-floating" post-judgment discovery when no criminal proceeding was pending.)
Yarborough v. Superior Court of Napa County (1985) 39 Cal.3d 197 (Court discusses problem of giving inmates access to the courts to defend themselves in civil suits and reaffirms right to appoint counsel without deciding the issue of compensation.)
In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873 (Upholds Prop. 8 which eliminates independent state grounds as a basis to suppress evidence.)
Mosk v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty. (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 474 (Justice Mosk refuses to respond to a subpoena for public testimony on “Tannergate” and wins).
Brosnahan v. Brown (1982) 32 Cal.3d 236 (Court rejects multiple constitutional challenges to Prop. 8.)
People v. Shirley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 18 (Holding hypnosis induced testimony inadmissible.)
Brosnahan v. Brown (1981) 31 Cal.3d 1 (Court rejects challenges to the manner in which Prop. 8 was put on the ballot.)
People v. Williams (1981) 29 Cal.3d 392 (Court overturns ruling prohibiting voir dire from being conducted as a means to uncover bases for peremptory challenges.)
Rockwell v. Superior Court (1976) 18 Cal.3d 420 (Court declares death penalty statute unconstitutional.)

California Court of Appeals


United States v. Hodge & Zweig (9th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 1347 (Yet another defense attorney subpoenaed before the grand jury to testify about fee source.)
People v. Lee (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 50 Restitution for non-economic damages is available to certain victims of child sex abuse.
People v. Hudson (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1318 (A sentencing finding that a defendant’s drug possession was not solely for personal use can be made by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence.)
County of Nevada v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal App 3d 1001, Defense counsel are entitled to seek relief where Sheriff purports to be able to limit attorney client jail visits to non contact, through the class encounters. Steve Munkelt counsel of record, J.T. Philipsborn on brief for CACJ.
Packer v. Superior Court (2013) 201 Cal.App.4th 152 (A Grand Jury indictment was challenged because one of the indicting Grand Jurors had been employed by an agency involved in the investigation of the case. CACJ appeared and supported the arguments that the indictment should have been invalid.)
Magallan v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1444 (A defendant is entitled to obtain discovery to assist him in litigating his suppression motion at the preliminary hearing. Steve Dunkle on brief for CACJ.)
Alverez v. Superior Court (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 969 (CACJ appeared, amicus cochairs Ann Moorman and J.T. Philipsborn, to address whether it is proper for a Superior Court judge newly assigned to a case to reject a plea agreement that had been accepted by the original judge.)
People v. Superior Court (Vidal) (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 434 (Review Granted. The case involved the definition of mental retardation in the Penal Code Section 1376 context-ineligibility for death penalty prosecution)
People v. Bussel (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th Supp.1 (CACJ appeared in the litigation of the misdemeanor manslaughter case in an attempt to clarify the appropriate instruction to be given where vehicular homicide is at issue.)
Williams v. Superior Court (2002) 93 Cal.App.4th 1408 (This case is also reported under the State Supreme Court amicus action. It was the initial attack on the validity of Proposition 22, modifying the juvenile justice architecture in California. Review was granted.)
People v. Salazar-Marino (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 590. (CACJ supported the argument that giving a false resident alien identification card as defined under state law was vague, and that the statute was preempted by federal law.)
Hatch v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 170 (This was one of the first interpretations of California Penal Code §288.2(a), which was interpreted to outlaw Internet communication leading to distribution of materials with intent to seduce a minor. This was a much commented upon case because of its novelty.)
Horton v. City of Oakland (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 580 (Joining several other groups, CACJ appeared to contest the constitutional validity of a city ordinance authorizing civil forfeiture of vehicles used by persons attempting to solicit prostitution, or to acquire drugs. Nina Wilder for CACJ)
People v. Paz (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 293 (A case in which CACJ’s opposition to legislation amending 288a was noted by the court at some length; this is not strictly speaking an amicus case, but rather as a case in which CACJ’s legislative work was commented upon.)
People v. Superior Court (Mouchaourab) (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 403 (This case, consolidated with four others, was one in which the defense sought to obtain discovery of non-testimonial Grand Jury proceedings for the purpose of preparing 995 motions. Interpreting Penal Code §1054, the court of appeal held that it was permissible for a trial court to compel disclosure of such proceedings to assist defendants in preparing motions to set aside an Indictment, including communications between the DA, the Grand Jury and questions and answers between the court and jury.)
People v. Superior Court (Whitley) (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1383 (The question presented was whether an unauthorized parole revocation undermined the legality of a civil commitment proceeding under the Sexually Violent Predators Act.)
In re Transcripts of Phase Three Grand Jury Proceedings (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1203 (Asks the age-old question: “Does a court have the authority to order disclosure of grand jury proceedings terminated by a "settlement" prior to deliberations by the grand jury?” And says yes. CACJ helped fight the result, and this case is reversed-see above)
In re Myresheia W. (1998) 61 Cal. App. 4th 734 (Juvenile charged with robbery, a strike under Three Strikes legislation, is still not entitled to a jury trial.)
Reid v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1326 (Mandate issues directing the lower court to vacate its previous order prohibiting the petitioner's defense counsel or agents from directly contacting the victims.)
Susan S. v. Philip D. Israels et al, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1290 (Crime victim has a cause of action for invasion of her constitutional right to privacy against a defense attorney who, without authorization, reads and disseminates the victim's confidential mental health records.)
Amarawansa v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1251 (The superior court adopted a flat fee compensation system for new cases, and subsequently extended the flat fee system to existing cases which petitioners had undertaken to handle at the hourly rate. The attorneys challenged the change for those cases they agreed to handle at an hourly rate. The court upheld the change of compensation rates because there was no contract for an hourly rate.)
People v. Nguyen (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 28 (Is it a burglary to enter a house with the intent to steal property by giving the victim a worthless check in exchange for various items? Yes.)
Espinoza v. Superior Court (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 957 (Defendant unsuccessfully sought to prohibit the county sheriff's department from supplying the bailiff in petitioner's trial, in which deputies from that sheriff's department will also testify for the prosecution.)
Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92 (No sanctions against counsel for unintentionally omitting facts from petition for writ of mandate.)
People v. Salemme (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 775 (Answering the question whether defendant's alleged entry into the home of an intended victim for the purpose of selling fraudulent securities constituted burglary in the affirmative.)
People v. Superior Court (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 491 (Statutory scheme authorizes forfeiture of property necessary for the retention of private counsel; retention is not prohibited by the constitutional right to counsel.)
People v. Superior Court (Fairbanks) (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 32 (Duty of defense counsel to provide access to or information about alteration of possible murder weapon.)
People v. Vega-Hernandez (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1084 (Trial court's restitution order exceeded its authority because Prop 8's provision for it was deemed not self-executing.)
Gilbert v. Superior Court (1985) 169 Cal. App. 3d 148 (Court concludes that the trial court erred in reducing petitioner's fees after he had performed his services for the indigent defendant.)
Adam v. Superior Court (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 402 (Court grapples with new statute which permits superior court to find an error at preliminary examination was "minor" within the meaning of the new subdivision, so that it could be corrected on remand.)
Mark Bledstein et al., v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 152 (CACJ argues successfully that the legal malpractice statute of limitations is tolled while a plaintiff is incarcerated.)
People v. Betty Horn (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 1014 (Arguing the impact of Prop 8 on the insanity standard in California.)
Arnelle v. City & County of San Francisco (1983)141 Cal.App.3d 693 (When counsel appointed by the court to represent an indigent defendant is dissatisfied with the compensation ordered him by the court, is an action at law ever the proper avenue by which he should seek review of the court's determination? Answer: No, counsel can rely on a petition for a writ of mandate.)
In re Gray (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 614 (Exactly when does the attorney-client privilege drop following an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.)
People v. Childs (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 374 (Robbery case involving 654 and Harvey issues.)
Deukmejian v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 253 (Law office search warrant case.)
People v. Municipal Court for the San Francisco Judicial District (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 739 (Courts discovery order in prostitution case for possible Murgia motion upheld.)

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals


Williams v. Johnson (9th Cir. 2016) 840 F. 3d 1006-CACJ filed a brief in support of the argument that the trial court violated the accused’s Sixth Amendment rights by substituting out a holdout juror. Tim Simeone and John Grimm were the main briefwriters.
Jones v. Davis (9th Cir. 2015) 806 F.3d 538 The case is before the Ninth Circuit for review of a District Judge's ruling that pervasive systemic delays invalidate the death penalty in California. CACJ, NACDL and MCLAP have filed a brief to address the implications of the delays in the appointment of counsel for death row inmates, and in doing so points to the chronic underfunding of the defense function in post-conviction death penalty litigation in California. John Philipsborn wrote the CACJ/MCLAP brief.
Planes v. Holder (9th Cir., 2012) 686 F.3d 1033 CACJ, combining with the Immigration Defense Project and other amici, and represented by attorney Julia Peck and others, addressed the immigration related considerations of the interpretation of criminal convictions in immigration proceedings.
Haskell v. Harris (9th Cir., 2012) 669 F. 3d 1049, CACJ combined with NACDL, and worked with the Daniel Broderick, David Porter, and Rachelle Barbour of the FPD, Eastern District, on an amicus brief, in a litigation challenging the California DNA and Fingerprint DataBase Act as unconstitutional in its application, especially to those arrested but then released with no charges filed or otherwise exonerated. John Philipsborn on brief for CACJ.
Irons v. Carey (9th Cir., 2007) 506 F.3d 951 (CACJ and other amici combined to address the justiciability of a claim made in federal court addressing California’s ‘good time’ provisions, joining the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.)
U.S. v. Ashfari (9th Cir., 2005) 426 F.3d 1150 (CACJ and many other groups intervened in this federal prosecution to contest the designation of given groups as terrorist organizations under 18 U.S.C. 2339(B)(a)(1).)
Fields v. Woodford (9th Cir., 2002) 315 F.3d 1062 (Challenging the racially based challenges from the prosecution. Brief authored by Richard Neuhoff.)
U.S. v. Walters (9th Cir., 2002) 309 F.3d 589 (CACJ appeared to contest the denial of counsel of choice, J.T. Philipsborn on brief.)
Fields v. Woodford (9th Cir. 2002) 309 F.3d 1095; 281 F.3d 963 (This case was briefed thanks to CACJ’s Wendy Peoples and Richard Neuhoff; CACJ appeared to urge the Ninth Circuit to change a portion of its ruling dealing with the admissibility of juror declarations in the review of a capital case, among other things.)
Gritchen v. Collier (9th Cir. 2001) 254 F.3d 807 (CACJ appeared with numerous other organizations in a 1983 action to urge the court to find that a police officer was acting under color of law in threatening to sue counsel for defamation.)
Sandoval v. Calderon (9th Cir. 2000-2001) 241 F.3d 765 (Assisted by several amicus lawyers, CACJ appeared here to urge the Ninth Circuit to uphold a habeas grant in a death case where the prosecutor had, among other things, urged the Bible as support for imposition of death.)
CACJ v. Butts (9th Cir. 1999-2000) 195 F.3d 1039 (This action which was initiated by CACJ and other organizations was aimed at providing a basis to allege violations of civil rights against police officers who intentionally violate Miranda rights. Chuck Weisselberg helped design this litigation.)
California First Amendment Coalition v. Calderon (9th Cir. July 23, 1998) 92 F.3d 1191 (Injunction requiring Warden to allow witnesses and media to view executions by lethal injection from the time the inmate is secured to the gurney until just after the pronouncement of death overturned by the Circuit. Warden gets to say when the viewing takes place based on security concerns.)
Xiao v. Reno (9th Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 808 (District court order prohibiting government from deporting witness to China who had been subject to torture is upheld.)
Barrera-Echavarria v. Rison (9th Cir. 1995) 44 F.3d 1441. (Chuck Weisselberg, and students in one of his clinics, combined to write a brief in a case in which the question was whether a person who came to the U.S. from Cuba could be detained given that his country of origin would not accept him, nor would any third country. Though a panel of the court ordered the detainee released, on rehearing, the full court was less friendly. The case has since been superseded. See 373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004)).
United States v. Scolari (9th Cir. 1995) 72 F.3d 751 (Noting CACJ’s position in another case approving judges participating in criminal settlement conferences.)
United States v. Mett (9th Cir. 1995) 65 F.3d 1531 (Conflict of interest where defense attorney for defendant in serious felony case also represented the prosecutor in a drunk driving offense held not reversible.)
In re Grand Jury Proceedings Oscar B. Goodman (9th Cir. 1994) 33 F.3d 1060; 1994 (Defense attorney required to divulge fee information to grand jury.)
Portman v. County of Santa Clara (9th Cir. 1993) 995 F.2d 898 (Issue: whether a public defender has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statutory scheme that makes him an at-will employee on the ground that the scheme interferes with the Sixth Amendment rights of his clients.)
United States v. Sherbondy (9th Cir. 1988) 865 F.2d 996 (Violent felony involving firearm, commerce clause, witness intimidation.)
United States v. Simpson (9th Cir. 1987) 813 F.2d 1462 (Not outrageous enough misconduct to dismiss a case where the government informant has sexual relationship with defendant as part of her cooperation to make a case.)
United States v. Lopez (9th Cir. 1993) 4 F.3d 1455 (Government secretly has defendant seeing another “defense” attorney to foster cooperation deemed bad form but not sufficient in itself to warrant dismissal.)
Toussaint v. McCarthy (9th Cir. 1986) 801 F.2d 1080 (Eighth amendment prison conditions reviewed, e.g., enforced idleness in administrative segregation, access to the prison law library, health care, visits, etc.)
United States v. Leonard Peltier (8th Cir. 1986) 800 F.2d 772 (Government withholding of evidence not serious enough to warrant relief.)
United States v. Agosto (8th Cir. 1982) 675 F.2d 965 (Government filed a motion for inquiry concerning possible conflicts of interest of certain defense counsel and the district court disqualified three defense counsel.)
United States v. Barger (9th Cir. 1982) 672 F.2d 772 (Another case in which CACJ supports an attorney who has been denied payment of investigator fees and costs.)
United States v. Seawell (1978) 583 F.2d 416 (“Dynamite” blast instruction to dislodge a potentially hung jury upheld again.)
In re Osterhoudt (9th Cir. 1983) 722 F.2d 591 (Another defense attorney subpoenaed before the grand jury to testify about fee source.)
United States v. Hodge & Zweig (9th Cir. 1977) 548 F.2d 1347 (Yet another defense attorney subpoenaed before the grand jury to testify about fee source.)

District Court Cases


Valdivia v. Davis (E.D. Cal., 2002) 206 F.Supp.2d 1068 (CACJ appeared in a case in which CACJ was a moving force some time ago in a case in which the district court found that California’s unitary parole revocation hearing system did not comport with due process. Several lawyers including past president Alex Landon, and Steve Perello, have been involved in this litigation. The case continues as this report is prepared, and CACJ’s participation continues to be acknowledged.)
U.S. v. Lopez (N.D.Cal., 1991) 765 F.Supp. 1433 (This District Court ruling which was partially overruled by the Ninth Circuit (see Lopez decision of 1993 above) involved former CACJ president Barry Tarlow as counsel of record, and litigation about the use of a violation of ethical rules by a federal prosecutor as the basis for sanctions. J.T. Philipsborn on brief.)

Affiliates