Criminal Law Reform
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Criminal Law Reform
McElrath v. Georgia
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury’s verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury’s verdict on other charges?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Texas
Jul 2021
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al
Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û has been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
All Cases
133 Criminal Law Reform Cases
Court Case
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Capital Punishment
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Capital Punishment
Abdullahi Khalif Noor v. Melissa Andrewjeski
Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.
Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Smith v. Arizona
Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation right permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimonial statements of a non-testifying laboratory analyst through an expert who relies on the non-testifying expert’s statement to reach their conclusions.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Smith v. Arizona
Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation right permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimonial statements of a non-testifying laboratory analyst through an expert who relies on the non-testifying expert’s statement to reach their conclusions.
Pennsylvania
Jul 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Horton v. Rangos (Amicus Brief)
This case challenges the government’s authority to incarcerate individuals accused of probation violations for months or years without meaningfully assessing their risk to the community.
Explore case
Pennsylvania
Jul 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Horton v. Rangos (Amicus Brief)
This case challenges the government’s authority to incarcerate individuals accused of probation violations for months or years without meaningfully assessing their risk to the community.
Texas
Jun 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.
Explore case
Texas
Jun 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+3 Issues
Gonzalez v. Ramirez et al.
Although Texas law clearly prohibits prosecuting people for terminating their pregnancies, Starr County officials indicted, arrested, and jailed Lizelle Gonzalez for having an abortion. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative and Criminal Law Reform Project, alongside the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Texas and south Texas firm Garza Martinez, are representing Ms. Gonzalez in a lawsuit against Starr County and local officials based on violations of Ms. Gonzalez’s constitutional rights.
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Singer v. Orange City
This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asks whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The case remains pending.
Explore case
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Singer v. Orange City
This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asks whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The case remains pending.