In the last few years, defenders have started a revolution fighting aggressively and creatively against the use of prior drug convictions to enhance federal sentences. Specifically, defenders have come up with all sorts of new arguments as to why prior drug convictions cannot serve as recidivist predicates under various enhancements (including the Armed Career Criminal Act, USSG § 4B1.2(b), 21 U.S.C. § 841, and more). This recorded session gives an overview of these arguments (which include drug overbreadth as well as conduct overbreadth challenges) and celebrates wins during this revolution. This presentation is 1 hour.
Paresh Patel is the Appellate Team Lead for the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Maryland. He has been at the Federal Public Defender since 2003. Before then, he worked as a staff attorney at the Public Defender Service in Washington, D.C. and the Office of the Appellate Defender in New York, New York. In 1999-2000, he clerked for the Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon in Portland. Paresh earned his J.D. from American University in 1996, and he received his undergraduate degree from the University of Southern California in 1993.
Florida Bar Reference #2408226N
Approval Period: 08/28/2024 - 02/28/2026
This presentation delves into the longstanding use of risk assessment tools by the federal system, which classifies clients as either low or high risk for reoffending. It highlights two principal instruments: the Pre-Trial Risk Assessment (PTRA) and the Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA). The implications of the outcomes from these tools are profound, influencing critical judicial decisions such as pretrial release, the determination of sentence type and duration, setting release conditions, and revocations of release. The session will provide an overview of the outcomes these tools aim to predict and the predictive factors (e.g., prior behavior and sociodemographic characteristics) used to drive their conclusions. The talk identifies potential legal issues that arise from the application of these tools and addresses the concern of race and gender disparities. This presentation is designed to be accessible to all attendees, requiring no previous knowledge of these assessment tools.
Melissa Hamilton is a Professor of Law & Criminal Justice at the University of Surrey School of Law and a Surrey AI Fellow. Dr. Hamilton holds a JD and a Ph.D in Criminology and Criminal Justice from The University of Texas at Austin, and clerked for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Dr. Hamilton holds memberships in the American Psychological Association, Royal Statistical Society, Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, International Corrections and Prisons Association, and the State Bar of Texas. She is an advisor to the Sentencing Academy (England). Research interests include issues related to risk assessment practices, domestic and sexual violence, trauma responses, sentencing, and corrections. Technical skills include data sciences in criminal justice and forensic risk assessment. Dr. Hamilton has served as an expert witness in the U.S. and UK in civil and criminal cases involving individual and class action lawsuits.
Florida Bar Reference #2407453N
Approval Period: 07/24/2024 - 01/31/2026
This presentation will serve as a primer for mitigation investigations in non-capital cases. We will explore how you can uncover and use mitigation to obtain the best outcome for your client’s case. Being able to uncover your client’s mitigation story and present it in a compelling way to the government or the judge will aide greatly in your plea negotiations or at sentencing. We will discuss where to begin your investigation and what you should focus on given the quick pace of your cases.
Holly Ayers is an Investigator and Mitigation Specialist for the Office of the Federal Public Defender’s Capital Habeas Unit in the Northern District of Florida. She graduated from the University of North Florida with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Criminal Justice in 2003. For 21 years, she has worked as a criminal defense investigator. The last 13 years have been spent working exclusively on capital cases at the trial level and in federal habeas, including 9 years with the Federal Public Defender in the Northern District of Florida.
Greta Rhynes is an Investigator and Mitigation Specialist for the Office of the Federal Public Defender’s Capital Habeas Unit in the Northern District of Florida. She earned her Bachelor and Master of Social Work degrees from the University of Central Florida. She worked as a Mitigation Specialist with the Public Defender’s Office in Orlando, Florida for eight years, until 2016 when she joined the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the Northern District of Florida.
Diana Cook is an Investigator and Mitigation Specialist for the Office of the Federal Public Defender’s Capital Habeas Unit in the Northern District of Florida. She received her bachelor’s degree in psychology and criminal justice, as well as a master’s degree in forensic psychology from Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia. Her career in criminal defense began in 2010 with an internship at the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, where she continued as a fellow until 2013. Since completing her master’s degree in 2013, she was employed as a capital mitigation specialist for state public defender offices in Texas, Virginia, and Florida. She has been with the Northern District of Florida Federal Public Defender’s Office for 1 year.
Florida Bar Reference #2406518N
Approval Period: 06/26/2024 - 12/31/2025
Professor Fisher is a leading authority on constitutional law, federal courts, and Supreme Court practice. He has argued 48 cases in the Supreme Court, on issues ranging from criminal procedure to maritime law to civil and human rights. Professor Fisher’s successes include the landmark cases of Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, in which he persuaded the Court to adopt a new approach to the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause; Riley v. California, in which the Court for the first time applied the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable searches to digital information on smartphones; and Ramos v. Louisiana, which established that the constitutional right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to convict. In addition to his teaching and practice concerning the Supreme Court, Professor Fisher has published numerous articles on various constitutional issues, and he currently is writing a treatise on the Confrontation Clause. He also serves as special counsel to the Supreme Court and Appellate Practice group of O’Melveny & Myers. Before joining the Stanford faculty, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In this presentation, Professor Fisher analyzes the important Supreme Court opinions from last year's Supreme Court term as well as this year’s Supreme Court term. This thoughtful and engaging discussion explores the themes of the Supreme Court’s criminal cases. This presentation is 1 hour.
Florida Bar Reference #2404402N
Approval Period: 04/24/2024 - 10/31/2025
This presentation is a primer on litigating scientific evidence, including an overview of the most significant literature; the basics on making a Daubert challenge to Government proffers of expert testimony; fighting for adequate discovery, and an explanation of the proposed modification of FRE 702 and how to weaponize those changes. This video was part of the DSO Multi-Track Federal Criminal Defense Seminar in August 2022.
M. Chris Fabricant leads the Innocence Project’s Strategic Litigation Department, whose attorneys develop and execute national litigation and public policy strategies to address the leading causes of wrongful conviction, including eyewitness misidentification, the misapplication of forensic sciences, and false confessions. Over the course of a 20-year career in criminal justice, Fabricant has served as a clinical law professor, trial attorney, and appellate counsel. His writing, scholarship, and frequent public speaking focuses on the intersection of science, law reform, and social justice.
Florida Bar Reference #2211698N
Approval Period: 03/28/2024 - 09/30/2024
Once a defendant is found incompetent it can seemingly take forever to get them to a Federal Medical Center and back to court. Many fall to the wayside because courts, prosecutors, and even defense counsel aren’t sure how to keep the case moving. The good news is that the statute and caselaw can help. In this month’s video, Assistant Federal Public Defenders Joe Craven and Jackie Tarlton, will walk you through the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4241; nationwide caselaw; and sample pleadings that can protect your client from languishing indefinitely in competency and restoration proceedings and, maybe, even avoid civil commitment.
Joe Craven is a 1998 graduate of the University of Miami Law School. He’s been a Panel lawyer and as Assistant Federal Public Defender in North Carolina since 2003. Jackie Carlton is a 2012 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Florida Bar Reference #2402038N
Approval Period: 02/28/2024 - 08/31/2025
This presentation provides strategies on motions practice in federal criminal defense. AFPD Ben Schiffelbein discusses how to use your motions practice to advance your theory of defense, ensure that you are prepared to confront government expert witnesses, and obtain favorable evidence.
Florida Bar Reference #2400279N
Approval Period: 01/24/2024 - 07/31/2025
This presentation provides an overview of types of searches and seizures that law enforcement is regularly running in the digital and technological age, and what you should know to advocate for your clients. It covers topics such as cellphones and other device searches, cell site simulators, social media and other online account searches, automated license plate readers, geofences and reverse keyword searches, and more. Ms. Graham is a Clinical Supervising Attorney in the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley, School of Law.
Florida Bar Reference #2310792N
Approval Period: 11/29/2023 - 05/31/2025
Once a defendant is ordered for an evaluation, or found incompetent, it can seemingly take forever to get them to a Federal Medical Center and back to court. Many fall to the wayside because courts, prosecutors, and even defense counsel aren’t sure how to keep the case moving. The good news is that the statute and caselaw can help. Jackie Tarlton will walk us through the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4241; nationwide caselaw; and sample pleadings that can protect your client from languishing indefinitely in competency and restoration proceedings and, maybe, even avoid civil commitment. She will then have a Q&A to answer questions about our specific cases.
Jackie Tarlton is a 2012 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of North Carolina (Butner, NC is in her district). She has organized an initiative to provide resources, information, and opportunities for collaboration regarding BOP delays in Competency Evaluations and Restorations.
Florida Bar Reference #2310791N
Approval Period: 10/25/2023 - 04/30/2025
This presentation provides an overview of the 2023 Sentencing Guidelines Amendments, which were transmitted to Congress on April 27, 2023, and will go into effect on November 1, 2023, absent congressional action to the contrary. In this session, Jayme Feldman and Shelley Fite of the FPD Sentencing Resource Counsel review the guideline amendment process and discuss some of the important amendments promulgated by the Commission this year. They identify and brainstorm strategies for sentencing advocacy in light of the new Amendments, including how to use the ameliorative ones now and how to argue for the narrowest possible reading of the harmful ones down the line. By the end of the session, you should have a better understanding of the guideline amendment process, the 2023 Guidelines Amendments, and strategies for success at sentencing.
Florida Bar Reference #2310485N
Approval Period: 09/27/2023 - 03/31/2025
This presentation reviews the expansion of Fourth Amendment rights beyond reasonable expectation of privacy; finds benefits from recent Supreme Court cases on Fourth Amendment intrusions; discusses how race is increasingly recognized in Fourth Amendment analyses; and describes hidden gems among recent search and seizure decisions.
Stephen Sady is the longtime Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender from the District of Oregon. In addition to his renown litigation against the BOP, he frequently presents on search and seizure law.
Florida Bar Reference #2308467N
Approval Period: 08/30/2023 - 02/28/2025
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is one of the most misapplied evidentiary rules used by prosecutors to admit highly prejudicial and damaging evidence. In this video, Katie Tanaka and Jeremy Baron, two Assistant Federal Public Defenders from the District of Nevada, provide a review of Rule 404(b) – including its purpose, structure, and 2020 amendments to the government’s notice requirements. They also discuss the Circuit split that exists between courts trying to end the liberal admissibility of other-acts evidence and those relying on the traditional permissive approach. The presentation provides attorneys with strategies to argue and re-frame the permissive view of Rule 404(b) to keep out harmful evidence.
Florida Bar Reference #2308466N
Approval Period: 09/27/2023 - 03/31/2025
To represent our clients at the level of quality they deserve, we must have a strong command of the Federal Rules of Evidence. To achieve this, we must keep on top of changes to the evidence rules. Critical rules such as FRE 613(b) (prior inconsistent statement impeachment), FRE 702 (experts) and FRE 801(d)(2) (statements against interest) are in the process of undergoing important amendments. This presentation will cover these changes: Rene will discuss the why behind the amendments, how we can use them to our clients’ benefit, and how we can defuse their potential negative impact.
Rene Valladares is the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada. Rene is an adjunct professor at the UNLV Boyd School of Law and a part-time instructor at the UNLV Criminal Justice Program. Rene lectures nationally on criminal law, evidence, and criminal procedure issues. He also serves on the Federal Defenders Performance Management Group and the Federal Defenders Death Penalty Working Group. Rene received his J.D. from the University of Florida in 1997 and a L.L.M. in International Law from the University of Miami in 1993.
Florida Bar Reference #2306582N
Approval Period: 06/28/2023 - 12/31/2024
Amir Ali, the Executive Director of the MacArthur Justice Center and the Director of Harvard Law School’s Criminal Justice Appellate Clinic, and Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Florida look back at last year's Supreme Court term, analyze some of the important criminal law decisions from this year’s Supreme Court term, and look ahead to next year’s term. This thoughtful and engaging discussion will explore the themes of the Supreme Court’s criminal cases and help focus your practice on the major issues in criminal law.
Florida Bar Reference #2208924N
Approval Period: 12/16/2022 - 06/30/2024
Writing matters. It’s why we’re bringing Jay McEntire all the way from the Federal Public Defender’s Office in Spokane, Washington, to present this month’s in-office four-hour writing workshop.
Writing, of course, is especially important in federal court, where judges often make decisions based on what we put on paper, not what we say in court. Because writing plays an outsized role in shaping our clients’ futures, Jay has designed a workshop that will help you persuade with the written word—from soup to nuts.
In his four hours, Jay will present three courses. First, he’ll explore the moral foundation theory, which is the psychology behind human decision-making. Once explained, he’ll show you how to use the theory to craft writing that resonates with judges across the political spectrum.
Second, he’ll explore macro-level editing—the big picture topics (e.g., aesthetics, fonts, headers, and visuals) that are easy to understand and easy to implement.
Third, he’ll talk about the writer’s struggle—that is, it’s easy to recognize good writing, but it’s hard to know why. He’ll put that difficulty to bed, explain why a reader experiences “flow,” and outline easy-to-implement techniques to create flow in your own writing.
Jay is a 2007 graduate of the Seattle University School of Law. Before going to work for the Federal Public Defender, Jay clerked for a United States District Court Judge and was an Associate with a Spokane law firm. He’s been with the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington and Idaho since 2009. Since 2014, he has been an adjunct professor at the Gonzaga University School of Law. He regularly makes presentations about legal writing. You’ll find him to be as entertaining as he is informative.
Florida Bar Reference #2211698N
Approval Period: 03/28/2023 - 09/30/2024
Once a defendant is found incompetent it can seemingly take forever to get them to a Federal Medical Center and back to court. Many fall to the wayside because courts, prosecutors, and even defense counsel aren’t sure how to keep the case moving. The good news is that the statute and caselaw can help. In this month’s video, Assistant Federal Public Defenders Joe Craven and Jackie Tarlton, will walk you through the governing statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4241; nationwide caselaw; and sample pleadings that can protect your client from languishing indefinitely in competency and restoration proceedings and, maybe, even avoid civil commitment.
Joe Craven is a 1998 graduate of the University of Miami Law School. He’s been a Panel lawyer and as Assistant Federal Public Defender in North Carolina since 2003. Jackie Carlton is a 2012 graduate of the Georgetown University Law Center and is an Assistant Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
Florida Bar Reference #2211695N
Approval Period: 02/22/2023 - 08/31/2024
“Expert” testimony from law enforcement officers, often about the way those who sell drugs operate, can help get the Government across the finish line to a guilty verdict. Challenges to the testimony aren’t often successful but aren’t impossible. A 2020 case from the Ninth Circuit, United States v. Valencia-Lopez, 971 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2020), will give you a pathway for challenging the reliability of the testimony with the help of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In this month’s video Aaron Israelite covers the possibilities. Aaron is a 2009 graduate of the University of Texas Law School. He’s been a law clerk for a federal district court in Phoenix and a law clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He’s been a trial lawyer with the Federal Defenders of San Diego since 2012.
We recorded the video last summer at the Federal Defender Conference in Denver
Florida Bar Reference #2211697N
Approval Period: 01/24/2023 - 07/31/2024
In this month’s video, Federal Judicial Center host, Brenda Baldwin-White, talks with Laurie Levenson, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, about recent issues in the areas of criminal procedure and evidence. She focuses on Special Masters, whether a victim's DNA may be used in unrelated prosecutions against the victim, using attorney admissions against a criminal defendant, the current status of the Bond search doctrine, standards for the "custody" requirement for Miranda, how recent gun laws affect standards for stopping motorists, whether bad parking is sufficient for reasonable suspicion, Sixth Amendment limits on agency interviews of detainees, limits on fingerprinting practices, driverless cars and Fourth Amendment issues, legality of multiple pat downs during one stop, baggy pants and the Fourth Amendment, the extent to which the smell of marijuana is a ground for reasonable suspicion, coercion and involuntary interrogations, chalking tires and the Fourth Amendment, massage parlors and the Fourth Amendment, and the impact of amended Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 and proposed Amendment to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 on expert evidence in criminal cases.
Professor Levenson worked as an Assistant United States Attorney in Los Angeles for many years as both an appellate and trial lawyer. She joined the Loyola University faculty in 1989. She has been a visiting professor at the UCLA School of Law and at the Pepperdine University School of Law. She leads Loyola University’s capital habeas litigation clinic and the Project for the Innocent.