DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioner, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petitioner, V No. _______ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ DEVON ARCHER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Respondent. _________ On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ MATTHEW L. SCHWARTZ BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor New York, New York 10001 (212) 446-2300 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner i QUESTION PRESENTED The district court vacated Petitioner’s convictions for securities fraud and conspiracy and ordered a new trial after concluding that the evidence weighed so heavily against the verdict that there was a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice and that an innocent person may have been convicted. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked discre- tion to weigh the evidence under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a), unless there was eviden- tiary or instructional error or “the evidence was pa- tently incredible or defied physical realities.” The question presented is: Does Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a) af- ford district courts discretion to reweigh the evidence when evaluating a new trial motion, as eleven other federal courts of appeals have held, or does the rule require that a court “must defer to the jury’s resolu- tion of conflicting evidence,” unless there was eviden- tiary or instructional error or “the evidence was pa- tently incredible or defied physical realities,” as the Second Circuit held in this case? ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner is Devon Archer, who was defendant-ap- pellee below. Respondent is the United States of America, which was plaintiff-appellant below. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ................................ i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................. vi PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ... 1 OPINIONS BELOW .......................................... 1 JURISDICTION ................................................ 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ....... 2 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .......................... 7 I. Legal Background ................................... 7 a. Before Rule 33, District Courts Historically Possessed Discretion to Assess Whether Criminal Verdicts Were Against the Weight of the Evidence. ................................. 7 b. Rule 33 Incorporated the Discretionary Standard for Granting New Trials Based on Weight of the Evidence. .................... 9 c. The Majority of Circuits Interpret Rule 33 As Permitting Weight of iv the Evidence Challenges Addressed to the Trial Court’s Discretion. .......................................... 11 II. This Case ................................................. 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .................................................... 17 I. The Decision Below Creates a Split Among Federal Courts of Appeals as to Whether a New Trial May Be Granted Based on Weight of the Evidence Absent Impossible Evidence or Judicial Error. .................................... 18 a. The Seventh and Eighth Circuits Have Rejected the Requirement that Evidence Must Be Impossible or Incredible Before a District Court May Reweigh the Evidence. ... 20 b. The Archer Standard Is Incompatible with Those Circuits that Do Not Require District Courts to View the Evidence in the Light Most Favorable to the Government for Rule 33 Challenges Based on the Weight of the Evidence. ..................................... 24 II. The Second Circuit Broke from This Court’s Prior Rulings on District v Courts’ Discretion to Weigh the Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. ........ 29 III.The Question Presented Is of National Importance. ............................................. 33 IV. This Case Is the Right Vehicle. .............. 34 CONCLUSION .................................................. 35 APPENDIX A – Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (October 7, 2020) ............................. 1a APPENDIX B – Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (December 23, 2020) ........................ 19a APPENDIX C – Opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (November 15, 2018) ............................................................. 20a APPENDIX D – Federal Rules of Crimimal Procedure, Rule 33 ....................................... 59a vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Yeatts, 122 F.2d 350 (4th Cir. 1941) ..................... 34 Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1 (1899) ....................................... 7, 8 Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361 (1891) ................................... 5, 9, 30, 32 Galloway v. United States, 319 U.S. 372 (1943) ................................... 7 Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) ................................... 34 Holland v. Allied Structural Steel Co., 539 F.2d 476 (5th Cir. 1976) ..................... 18 Inland & Sea-Board Coasting Co. v. Hall, 124 U.S. 121 (1888) ................................... 9 Lee v. Lee, 33 U.S. 44 (1834) ...................................... 7 Maryland v. King, 567 U.S. 1301 (2012) ................................. 33 Metro. R.R. Co. v. Moore, 121 U.S. 558 (1887) ................................... 4 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243 (1940) ................................... 10 vii Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933) ................................... 7 Sparrow v. Strong, 71 U.S. 584 (1866) ..................................... 8 Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31 (1982) ..................................... 5, 25, 27 United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. 2013) ...................... 13 United States v. Alston, 974 F.2d 1206 (9th Cir. 1992) ................... 28 United States v. Archer, 977 F.3d 181 (2d Cir. 2020) ...................... passim United States v. Brodie, 295 F.2d 157 (D.C. Cir. 1961) ................... 25 United States v. Burks, 974 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2020) ..................... 24, 25 United States v. Cote, 544 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008) ........................ 24, 28 United States v. Crittenden, 827 Fed. App’x 448 (5th Cir. 2020) .......... 27 United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2001) ...................... 5 United States v. Galanis, 366 F. Supp. 3d 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ....... passim United States v. Johnson, 327 U.S. 106 (1946) ................................... 27, 28 United States v. Lews, 521 F. App’x 530 (6th Cir. 2013) .............. 24 viii United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir. 1980) ................... 22, 28 United States v. Lopez, 576 F.2d 840 (10th Cir. 1978) ................... 11, 25 United States v. Mallory, 902 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2018) ..................... 11, 25, 26 United States v. Martinez, 763 F.2d 1297 (11th Cir. 1985) ................. 28 United States v. McAtee, 481 F.3d 1099 (8th Cir. 2007) ................... 22 United States v. Merlino, 592 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2010) ....................... 24, 28 United States v. Morales 902 F.2d 604 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Morales I”) ............................................................... 4, 12 United States v. Morales, 910 F.2d 467 (7th Cir. 1990) (“Morales II”) .............................................................. 4, 21 United States v. Petit, No. 19-cr-850-JSR, 2021 WL 673461 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 21, 2021). .......................... 19 United States v. Robertson, 110 F.3d 1113 (5th Cir. 1997) ................... 11, 25, 27 United States v. Rothrock, 806 F.2d 318 (1st Cir. 1986) ..................... 28 United States v. Sanchez 969 F.2d 1409 (2d Cir. 1992) .................... 18 ix United States v. Shipp, 409 F.2d 33 (4th Cir. 1969) ....................... 26 United States v. Smith, 331 U.S. 469 (1947) ................................... 31 United States v. Stacks, 821 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2016) ................... 4, 12, 22 United States v. Thompson, __ F. Supp. 3d __, No. 1:18-cr-00126- EAW, 2020 WL 6930621 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2020) ........................................... 19 United States v. Truman, 688 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2012) ...................... 33 United States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. 1999) ..................... 20 United States v. Weinstein, 452 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1971) ...................... 6 United States v. Wolff, 892 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1989) ....................... passim Zollman v. Symington Wayne Corp., 438 F.2d 28 (7th Cir. 1991) ....................... 18 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3231 .......................................... 12 18 U.S.C. § 3731 .......................................... 11 28 U.S.C. § 1254 .......................................... 1 x Other Authorities Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2281 (Rules ed. 1958) ......................................... 26 Drafting History of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Madeleine J. Wilken & Nicholas Triffin eds., 1991) ...... 10, 30, 31 U.S. Courts, Table T-1, https://www.uscourts.gov/data-table- numbers/t-1. .............................................. 34 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) ..................................... 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 ......................................... 10 Fed. R. of Crim. P. 29 .................................. 10 Fed. R. of Crim. P. 33(a), ............................. 2, 6, 9 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI The Petitioner, Devon Archer, respectfully peti- tions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2D
    Options for Federal Judicial Screening Committees Second Edition September 2011 (2d. ed.) OPTIONS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL SCREENING COMMITTEES: Where They Are in Place, How They Operate, and What to Consider in Establishing and Managing Them The Governance Institute, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System at the University of Denver (IAALS), and Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution have revised the June 2010 first edition of this guide, and will continue to issue revisions periodically. It provides United States senators, other federal legislators, and their staffs with information about creating committees to screen potential judicial and law enforcement position nominees; provides them and committee members with information about committee operations; and provides others interested in federal judicial selection with information about an often- overlooked aspect of the process. It is not a “best practices” manual, in part because relatively little is known about how such committees work and even less about what seems to work best. The most current version of the guide is available at: www.du.edu/legalinstitute and www.brookings.edu/experts/wheelerr.aspx This guide was authored principally by: Russell Wheeler, president of the Governance Institute and a Visiting Fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program. He has served on the IAALS Board of Advisors since its creation in 2006. Rebecca Love Kourlis, executive director of IAALS. She served on Senator Ken Salazar’s screening committee and co-chaired the committee that Senators Mark Udall and Michael Bennet appointed to screen candidates for two District of Colorado vacancies. (Malia Reddick, director of judicial programs for the Institute, assists with ongoing revisions.) The Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) is a national, independent research center dedicated to continuous improvement of the process and culture of the civil justice system.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:20-Cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25
    Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 1 of 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS MARIA ALEJANDRA CELIMEN SAVINO, JULIO CESAR MEDEIROS NEVES, and all those similarly situated, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, v. THOMAS HODGSON, Bristol County Sheriff Civil Action No. in his Official Capacity; STEVEN J. SOUZA, Superintendent Bristol County House of Corrections in his Official Capacity; TODD LYONS, Boston Field Office, Acting Director, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Immigrations and Customs Enforcement in his CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Official Capacity; 2241 AND COMPLAINT FOR CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, Department DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE of Homeland Security, in his Official Capacity; RELIEF MATTHEW T. ALBENCE, Deputy Director and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his Official Capacity; and U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, Respondents-Defendants. _______________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1. This case presents a request for immediate relief on behalf of a putative class of highly vulnerable Petitioner-Plaintiffs (“Plaintiffs”) – civil immigration detainees held by Respondents-Defendants (“Defendants”) at the Bristol County House of Corrections and C. Carlos Carreiro Immigration Detention Center (“Carreiro”) in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively “Bristol County Immigration Detention Facilities”) – who are at imminent risk of contracting COVID-19, the lethal virus that is sweeping the globe and that feeds on precisely the unsafe, congregate conditions in which Plaintiffs are being held. 1 Case 1:20-cv-10617-WGY Document 1 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 25 2. The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 infection – and death – has produced an unprecedented global pandemic.
    [Show full text]
  • April 28, 2020 Twenty-Third Interim Report
    08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document Pg 1 of 66 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111 Telephone: (212) 589-4200 Facsimile: (212) 589-4201 Irving H. Picard Email: [email protected] David J. Sheehan Email: [email protected] Seanna R. Brown Email: [email protected] Heather R. Wlodek Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Substantively Consolidated SIPA Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and the Chapter 7 Estate of Bernard L. Madoff UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SECURITIES INVESTOR PROTECTION CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Applicant, Adv. Pro. No. 08-01789 (SMB) v. SIPA Liquidation BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT (Substantively Consolidated) SECURITIES LLC, Defendant. In re: BERNARD L. MADOFF, Debtor. TRUSTEE’S TWENTY-THIRD INTERIM REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2020 4812-5216-8375.2 08-01789-smb Doc 19502 Filed 04/28/20 Entered 04/28/20 13:08:36 Main Document TABLEPg OF 2 CONTENTSof 66 Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................3 III. FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE ESTATE ..................................................................3 IV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION ...........................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • X Marquis Collier, John Doe I, John Doe II, ¦ and John Doe III, Individually and on ¦ Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, ¦ ¦ Petitioners, ¦ V
    Case 1:20-cv-02183 Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------ X Marquis Collier, John Doe I, John Doe II, ¦ and John Doe III, individually and on ¦ behalf of all others similarly situated, ¦ ¦ Petitioners, ¦ v. ¦ ¦ RALPH SOZIO, United States Marshal, ¦ 20 Civ. 2183 Southern District of New York; BRYAN ¦ T. MULLEE, Acting United States ¦ Marshal, Eastern District of New York; ¦ THE GEO GROUP, INC.; WILLIAM ¦ ZERILLO, Facility Administrator, Queens ¦ Detention Facility, ¦ ¦ Respondents. ¦ ------------------------------------------------------ X CLASS ACTION PETITION SEEKING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Ann-Elizabeth Ostrager Alana M. Longmoore Hannah Lonky Fackler SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, New York 10004 Counsel for Petitioners and Proposed Class Members May 13, 2020 Case 1:20-cv-02183 Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1 PARTIES ........................................................................................................................................4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................................8 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES .............................................................9 BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Law Program Fall 2018-Spring 2019 Course Offerings*
    CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM FALL 2018-SPRING 2019 COURSE OFFERINGS* JACOB D. FUCHSBERG CLINICAL LAW CENTER TH 245 SULLIVAN STREET, 5 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10012 212-998-6430 *AS OF APRIL 2, 2018 CONSULT WEBSITE FOR UPDATES: http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/clinics/ Table of Contents Overview ...............................................................................................................................................................3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................3 Guidelines for Clinical Courses .........................................................................................................................3 Application Instructions .........................................................................................................................................4 Timeline for JD Application Process .................................................................................................................4 Submit Applications Online ...............................................................................................................................4 Maximum Number of Clinic Applications ...........................................................................................................4 Pre- or Co-Requisites ........................................................................................................................................4 Interviews ..........................................................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • C2F0ANNVD1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK 2 ---X 2 3 UNIT
    C2F0ANNVD1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 ------------------------------x 2 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 3 4 v. 10 CR 007 4 5 SANDY ANNABI and 6 ZEHY JEREIS, 7 7 Defendant. 8 8 ------------------------------x 9 9 New York, N.Y. 10 February 15, 2012 10 9:30 A.M. 11 11 12 12 13 Before: 13 14 HON. COLLEEN MCMAHON, 14 15 District Judge 15 16 16 APPEARANCES 17 17 PREET BHARARA 18 United States Attorney for the 18 Southern District of New York 19 JASON P.W. HALPERIN 19 PERRY A. CARBONE 20 Assistant United States Attorneys 20 21 WILLIAM I. ARONWALD 21 Attorney for Defendant ANNABI 22 22 ANTHONY J. SIANO 23 Attorney for Defendant JEREIS 24 25 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 2 C2F0ANNVD1 1 (Case called; In open court) 2 THE COURT: Hello to my current favorite reporters. I 3 don't want anyone in the press to think that I don't love them, 4 people covering the current story are always my current 5 favorite reporters. 6 Now this, by the way, is Judge Allison Nathan, one of 7 the newest members of our court. Judge Nathan and a couple of 8 members of her staff are going to judge school today, they're 9 going to watch, okay, and see how we do it, administratively. 10 Okay, I have a letter from Mr. Aronwald. Thank you 11 very much. I have a letter from Mr. Siano, asking for an 12 adjournment. 13 The adjournment is denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 157 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2011 No. 153 Senate The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was appoint the Honorable TOM UDALL, a Senator WELCOMING THE PRESIDENT OF called to order by the Honorable TOM from the State of New Mexico, to perform SOUTH KOREA the duties of the Chair. UDALL, a Senator from the State of DANIEL K. INOUYE, Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, New Mexico. President pro tempore. later today, Senators will have the op- portunity to hear from South Korean PRAYER Mr. UDALL of New Mexico thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President President Lee, and I know we all look The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- pro tempore. forward to it. fered the following prayer: South Korea is a stalwart ally that f Let us pray. enjoys a flourishing economy. It is a Eternal God, hallowed be Your Name. RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY shining example of how embracing de- Today, empower our lawmakers to run LEADER mocracy and free market principles with patience the race that is set be- The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- can transform a society for the good. fore them, looking to You, the author pore. The majority leader is recog- Imagine, in 50 years, they went from and finisher of our faith. Keep them nized. a civil war to a military dictatorship from discouragement as You help them f to an evolving democracy and on the to be persistent in their efforts to meet economic side to a thriving capitalist today’s challenges with faith and trust SCHEDULE country that has the 13th largest econ- in You.
    [Show full text]
  • FC Rhodes Fall-09.Indd
    The Magazine of Rhodes College • Fall 2009 A Defi ning Decade President William E. Troutt Marks 10 Years at Rhodes FALL 2009 Contents VOLUME 16 • NUMBER 3 2 A Defi ning Decade President Troutt Marks 10 Years at Rhodes 12 It Costs How Much? College costs explained 2 14 Rhodes Welcomes New Board Chair Bill Michaelcheck ’69 heads Rhodes Board of Trustees 15 Learning from the Past Four students delve into different cultures 20 Teaching and Learning Professor Andrew Michta returns to Rhodes 14 24 Alumni News Class Notes, In Memoriam On the Cover A Defi ning Decade—William E. Troutt, the 19th president of Rhodes, celebrates 10 years in offi ce. (See story on page 2.) Photography by Allison Rodgers 15 20 Online is published three times a year by Rhodes College, 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112 Visit the Rhodes Web site at rhodes.edu to fi nd current campus, as a service to all alumni, students, parents, alumni and athletic news, upcoming events and much more. faculty, staff and friends of the college. Fall 2009—Volume 16, Number 3 Get up-to-the-minute news with a RSS feed. EDITOR Go to Rhodes.edu/6208.asp Martha Hunter Shepard ’66 GRAPHIC DESIGNERS See more at rhodes.edu/magazine Larry Ahokas Robert Shatzer Rhodes Online offers Web-only content extras. CONTRIBUTORS Visit rhodes.edu/magazine to see and hear these special Justin Fox Burks, features: Daney Daniel Kepple, Allison Rodgers, Marci Woodmansee ’90 Photo Album LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Please address postal correspondence to: • President Troutt’s fi rst 10 years at Rhodes Martha H.
    [Show full text]
  • Alumni News & Notes
    et al.: Alumni News & Notes Alumni News & Notes AFamily Tradition 1945; Joanne's undergraduate degree was conferred in 1948; and Bradford This is the first in a series of stories about graduated in 1949. multigenerational SU families. Hermon Downey's extended family Liza Dalrymple '83 feels virtually no also followed him to SU. His nephews, separation between Syracuse University Hermon and Wilfred Swift, earned SU and her family, which boasts three gen­ degrees in the 1920s. Another nephew, erations of SU alumni-1900 to 1983 . Paul William Downey, attended the Dalrymple's grandfather, Hermon University, but left to fight in World Horatio Downey-believed to be the War I. Unfortunately he contracted fi rst person from his hometown of influenza and died on his way home Akron, New York to attend college­ from the war. chose Syracuse University for his stud­ On a brighter note, romance blos­ ies. He graduated with a bachelor's somed at Syracuse University for two of degree in 1900 and began a family tra­ Downey's children. Bradford Downey dition. "Twelve people in my family fol­ met his wife, Gertrude Roney '50, on lowed my grandfather's lead and the Hill. Joanne Downey and Stanley Fond Memories attended SU," Dalrymple says. Dalrymple '52 met at SU and were mar­ AS SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY ALUMNI, we are fortu­ Downey, a Methodist minister who ried in a Hendricks Chapel ceremony nate to have fond memories of our years together taught poetry at SU, had one child, Vi­ performed by Hermon Downey the day on campus and the many unforgettable traditions vian, who graduated from SU in 1922.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Law Program Fall 2017-Spring 2018 Course Offerings*
    CLINICAL LAW PROGRAM FALL 2017-SPRING 2018 COURSE OFFERINGS* JACOB D. FUCHSBERG CLINICAL LAW CENTER TH 245 SULLIVAN STREET, 5 FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10012 212-998-6430 *AS OF APRIL 13, 2017 CONSULT WEBSITE FOR UPDATES: http://www.law.nyu.edu/academics/clinics/ Table of Contents Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Guidelines for Clinical Courses ......................................................................................................................... 3 Application Instructions ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Timeline for JD Application Process ................................................................................................................. 4 Submit Applications Online ............................................................................................................................... 4 Maximum Number of Clinic Applications ........................................................................................................... 4 Pre- or Co-Requisites ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Interviews
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Schools Across the Nation
    The The Nonprofit Org. laws in translation Professor Jerome Cohen has spent U.S. Postage Law School PAID his life bridging East and West, and Rochester, NY promoting the rule of law in China Office of Development and Alumni Relations Permit No. 841 The 161 Avenue of the Americas, Fifth Floor beyond borders New York, NY 10013-1205 Ten experts debate what’s at stake T H E at the intersection of immigration M A Law School THE MAGAZINE OF THE NEW yorK UNIVERSITY scHOOL OF Law | 2009 and law enforcement G A Z INE OF T H E NEW yor K K UNI V ERSITY sc H OO L L OF L aw | 2009 Brick by cahill gordon & reindel llp cravath, swaine & moore llp fried, frank, harris, shriver & jacobson llp paul, weiss, rifkind, wharton & garrison llp sullivan & cromwell llp Brick wachtell, lipton, rosen & katz weil, gotshal & manges llp Between Liberty 2009 | V and Security O L U Find out what you can do to have Please contact Marsha Metrinko at M IN THE WAKE OF 9/11, SACRED TENETS OF DEMOCRACY ARE BEING challengED E your firm acknowledged on our (212) 998-6485 or [email protected]. XIX WALL OF HONOR. and A NEW LEGAL DISCIPLINE grapples WITH the FallOUT. Take A Shot f r i d a y & y a d i r f 16–17, saturday 2010 aprilnyu school of law $400 Million 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Please visit law.nyu.edu/reunion2010 for more information Increase Alumni Participation Rate Double the to 30% Annual Fund Contributions Ourof any historic amount capital bring campaign us closer concludes to hitting allon threeDecember of our 31, campaign 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • United States V. Archer
    18-3727 United States v. Archer In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ______________ AUGUST TERM 2019 Docket No. 18-3727 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. DEVON ARCHER, Defendant-Appellee, JASON GALANIS, GARY HIRST, JOHN GALANIS, AKA YANNI, HUGH DUNKERLEY, MICHELLE MORTON, BEVAN COONEY, Defendants.* ______________ ARGUED: November 18, 2019 DECIDED: October 7, 2020 ______________ Before: WALKER, SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges, NATHAN, District Judge.† * The Clerk of the Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above. † Judge Alison Nathan, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. ______________ The government appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ronnie Abrams, J.) granting Defendant Devon Archer’s motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, following Archer’s conviction for conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C §§ 78j(b) and 78ff, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Because the weight of the evidence presented at trial did not preponderate heavily against the jury’s verdict, we find that the district court abused its discretion in vacating the judgment and granting a new trial. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is REVERSED, and the jury verdict is reinstated. The case is REMANDED to the district court for sentencing. ______________ SARAH K. EDDY (Rebecca Mermelstein, Negar Tekeei, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Audrey Strauss, Acting United States Attorney, for Appellant.
    [Show full text]