United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210
United States Supreme Court |
United States v. Alvarez: U.S. Supreme Court case
considering the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, a law enacted by Congress to
prohibit the false claiming of military medals. Xavier Alvarez, a member of a California
water district board, made numerous false claims about his military record, including
being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In fact, he has never served in the
military. He was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and sentenced to probation, a
fine, and community service. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
overturned the conviction, finding that the Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment
guarantee of freedom of speech. In the Supreme Court, CJLF entered the case, filing a
brief on behalf of the Legion of Valor of the United States and itself. Our brief
argues that the Act only prohibits lies, not mistakes, parodies, or theatrical
performances, and that lies are not protected under the First Amendment. |
Martinez v. Ryan, No. 10-1001
United States Supreme Court |
Martinez v. Ryan: U. S. Supreme Court review of a
child molester’s claim that his conviction should be overturned because his
state-appointed appeals lawyer failed to attack the effectiveness of his trial attorney.
Luis Martinez was convicted of two incidents of sexual conduct with his 11-year-old
stepdaughter on a July morning in 1999. Evidence at trial included the victim’s
videotaped description of the assaults to a social worker and a DNA match of Martinez’s
semen on her nightgown. Following his conviction, Martinez’s claims challenging his
trial and sentencing were rejected by the state courts on direct appeal, and his
appointed lawyer reported that she could find no worthy claims to raise on state
collateral review. Later, represented by a different lawyer, Martinez claimed that
his appellate lawyer was ineffective because she did not find flaws in the performance
of his trial lawyer. This claim was reviewed and rejected by two state courts, the
federal district court and the court of appeals. When the Supreme Court agreed to
consider Martinez’s appeal, CJLF joined the case. The Foundation argues that there is
no constitutional right to a government paid lawyer for collateral review or habeas
corpus, and therefore no right to challenge the effectiveness of a lawyer appointed
for those types of post-conviction proceedings. |
Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209
Missouri v. Frye, No. 10-444
United States Supreme Court |
Lafler v. Cooper/Missouri v. Frye: Two U. S. Supreme
Court cases involving criminal defendants who claim that their convictions should be
overturned because they may have been convicted on lesser charges had their defense
attorneys not given them bad advice. In 2003 Anthony Cooper was charged with attempted
murder for shooting a woman causing serious injury. A police officer witnessed the
shooting. Prior to trial, the state offered Cooper a plea bargain carrying a shorter
sentence than if he were convicted on all charges. His attorney advised against the
deal. Cooper was later convicted by a jury and received the longer sentence. In 2007,
Galin Frye was charged with driving with a suspended license, a felony because of his
multiple prior convictions. Prior to trial, the prosecutor offered to allow Frye to
plead guilty to a misdemeanor and serve 90 days in jail. Frye’s attorney did not
report this offer to his client. Later, Frye pled guilty to the original felony charge
and received 3 years in prison. In Frye, the state appellate court ruled in favor of
the defendant. In Cooper, the state courts rejected the claim but a federal appellate
court overturned the judgment. CJLF has joined the high court review of these cases
to argue that, while a better attorney might have obtained a more favorable deal,
neither criminal was unjustly convicted, and neither is entitled to a second chance
for a better result. |
|
