DOCSLIB.ORG

Second Circuit, Other Circuits, District Courts, and State Courts, Or from Law Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Full_Name City State Last_Name Next Clerkship Opening Accepting Applications Now? Mail, Email or OSCAR? Post Grad Experience? Notes Judge Cabranes does not have any openings for the 2019-2020 term, nor for the 2020-2021 term. He has two openings for the 2021-2022 term. Judge Cabranes will interview students in their third year of law school (or who have graduated from law school) who have an interest in a district Judge Cabranes prefers candidates to have a district court clerkship for the 2020-2021 term, followed by a clerkship in the Court of Appeals for the Jose Cabranes New Haven Connecticut Cabranes 2 openings 2021-2022 term Yes, on a rolling basis Paper court clerkship lined up prior to coming to his chambers. 2021-2022 term. He is primarily interested in applications from individuals who have completed at least two years of law school, including current and recent law school graduates. Many of his former clerks have come to chambers with prior legal experience, whether from other clerkships on the Second Circuit, other circuits, district courts, and state courts, or from law practice. Students with excellent records from backgrounds and law schools traditionally underrepresented in the federal judiciary are encouraged to apply. Judge Calabresi plans on interviewing candidates in July and encourages all applications to be submitted as soon as possible, by June 24th at the latest. Judge Calabresi does not make exploding offers. All applications are to be submitted electronically through OSCAR, so please do not send paper He will begin accepting and reviewing applications on June 17, copies to chambers. If you submitted an application through OSCAR or sent a paper application at Guido Calabresi New Haven Connecticut Calabresi 2021-2022 term 2019, and he will likely conduct interviews that same week. On-line, Paper Prefered, but not required. a prior date, please resubmit your materials through OSCAR. I generally hires clerks who will arrive with prior work Through OSCAR, please also submit two writing samples. Each should be a piece of legal writing experience in the law, preferably in a district court (e.g., memorandum, brief, law review piece, or course paper) that is your own work product. At clerkship, but sometimes also in practice. On occasion, least one sample of persuasive legal writing (e.g., memorandum or brief) is preferred; one sample 2 openings for 2021-2022 term with Aug start & 2 Currently accepting and reviewing applications for law clerks for the however, I have hired clerks for the term following their should ideally be at least 20 pages in length. If your writing samples have been edited by others, Susan Carney New Haven Connecticut Carney openings with Sept start 2021-22 Term. On-line (recommended), Paper 3L year. please provide a description of the nature and scope of the editorial work that was done. The judge is not accepting applications, and chambers Denny Chin New York New York Chin would not indicate when the next opening would be. On-line, Paper Not required. Chambers is not currently accepting applications. Judge Droney has two clerkships available for the September 2020-2021 term, and will be conducting interviews on a rolling basis until these positions are filled. Please see the position description section of the clerkship posting for further instructions about my application Christopher Droney Hartford Connecticut Droney 2 openings for 2020-2021 term starting in Sept Yes, until 7/31/2019 Paper Not required. requirements. Prefers applicants with at least one year post graduation Peter Hall Rutland Vermont Hall 2021-2022 term Will be accepting applications for the 2021 term in Nov/Dec 2019 Paper/Mail experience -- law clerk or firm work. Judge Hall is not currently hiring. Judge Jacobs is actively seeking two law clerks for the 2021-2022 Applicants with work experience, either prior to or after To apply, please either submit your materials through OSCAR or mail your application in hard copy term. If you have previously applied by paper, please send a law school, are preferred, as are applicant with journal as soon as possible. Applications are considered on a rolling basis. If you have applied to clerk for Dennis Jacobs New York New York Jacobs 2 openings for the 2021-2022 term starting in Aug/Sept complete application through OSCAR. On-line (recommended), Paper experience. Judge Jacobs in an earlier term, you are encouraged to re-submit your application. The judge is adhering to the hiring plan and with respect to 2Ls will Strongly prefers applicants who have, or will have when be accepting applications in June for the 2022-23 term and they begin the clerkship, experience clerking for a district Chief Judge Katzmann will not be interviewing 2Ls in their third semester of law school. Graduates Robert Katzmann New York New York Katzmann 2022-23 term and subsequent terms subsequent terms On-line, Paper court. may be interviewed at any time. The Judge will be following the hiring plan on the 2nd Circuit website. Application packets from 2L Amalya Kearse New York New York Kearse 3 openings for the 2021-2022 term Yes, will be interviewing applicants for the 2021 term in June 2019 Paper Not required. candidates should include fall semester grades, if available. Judge Leval's clerkships are all full through the 2020 Term. The next available opening is for the The next available opening is for the 2021 term, and the judge will 2021 term, and the judge will be reviewing applications in the Spring. Chambers indicated that the Pierre Leval New York New York Leval 2021-2022 term be reviewing applications in the Spring. On-line, Paper Not required. opening will be available on OSCAR Debra Livingston New York New York Livingston 2 openings 2020-2021 term Yes, until 8/13/2020 On-line, Paper Not required. Chambers indicated that openings for the 2021 term will be posted on OSCAR. Judge Lohier is accepting applications from law school graduates, 3Ls, 2Ls, and rising 2Ls for law clerk positions that begin in January 2021 and Summer 2021. Applicants may apply at any time permitted by OSCAR. Applicants may provide updates to their applications by emailing Raymond Lohier New York New York Lohier 3 openings for the 2021-2022 term Yes On-line (recommended), E-mail Not required. Lohier [email protected]. The judge requires an undergraduate grade sheet. Judge Lynch is currently accepting applications for 3 openings for the 2021 term. He has not Gerard Lynch New York New York Lynch 4 openings for the 2021-2022 term Yes, reviewing in late Spring early Fall 2019 On-line, Paper Not required. posted them on OSCAR, but will by Spring 2019. Judge Newman has available clerkship positions for the 2020 term and on. Paper applications should be mailed to 40 Centre Street, Room 2802 New York, New York 10007-1501. When submitting an application include the following documents: 1 Resume, 1 Cover letter, Law grade sheet and 1 Writing sample. Preference to parents who would like to work from home except for The judge is hiring for the 2020 term, with interviews starting by the Judge Newman prefers prior district court clerkship work occasional days in New York City. Parents who wish to work at home to take care of young child or Jon Newman New York New York Newman 2020-2021 term end of August 2019. On-line, Paper experience. children. Prior district court clerkship preferred. Chambers would not disclose hiring information, but indicated that applicants can send in their materials for Applicants do not need to submit a writing sample. Prior work experience is preferred. He is also Barrington Parker New York New York Parker any term, and will be contacted for an interview. Paper Prefered, but not required. accepting 2Ls. Judge Pooler has filled her law clerk positions through 2021-2022, Prior work experience helpful - will consider attorneys Applicants should apply by email to [email protected]. Emails should include the and will begin accepting applications for the 2022 term early Fall who have worked in a law firm for 1-2 years or previous applicant's name, law school, and the word "Clerkship" in the subject line. Judge Pooler will accept Rosemary Pooler Syracuse New York Pooler 2022-2023 term 2019 On-line clerkship (district) applications via OSCAR, but prefers that you use the above emal to sumbit and application. Applicants must submit a minimum of two full years of grades. Those applicants who will have completed a federal district court clerkship prior to beginning their clerkship in my chambers are especially encouraged to apply. PLEASE SEND A HARD COPY OF ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS TO Judge Raggi is now accepting applications for the 2022-2023 term. CHAMBERS. Reena Raggi Brooklyn New York Raggi 2022-2023 term Please send applications by mail. Paper Prefered, but not required. 2021-2022 term Chambers has hired through 2020, and is accepting applications for the 2021-2022 term. Robert Sack New York New York Sack Yes Paper Prefered, but not required. Clerks for Judge Walker have staggered start/end dates, typically with one starting in July, one in August, and one in September. The judge prefers 3Ls and is only accepting applications via paper. Judge Walker has filled all positions for the 2020-2021 term. We will not be accepting applications John Walker New Haven Connecticut Walker 2021-2022 term Not yet, will be accepting in Spring 2019 On-line, Paper (recommended) Prefers 3Ls for the 2021-2022 term until Spring 2019. Currently, Judge Wesley is not reviewing applications, or interviewing for future law clerk positions. When he does, Richard Wesley Geneseo New York Wesley we will post those available positions on OSCAR Paper Prefered, but not required.
Recommended publications
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties in the Second Circuit

    Free Speech and Civil Liberties in the Second Circuit

    Fordham Law Review Volume 85 Issue 1 Article 3 2016 Free Speech and Civil Liberties in the Second Circuit Floyd Abrams Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Floyd Abrams, Free Speech and Civil Liberties in the Second Circuit, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 11 (2016). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FREE SPEECH AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE SECOND CIRCUIT Floyd Abrams* INTRODUCTION Much of the development of First Amendment law in the United States has occurred as a result of American courts rejecting well-established principles of English law. The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently rejected English law, permitting far more public criticism of the judiciary than would be countenanced in England, rejecting English libel law as being insufficiently protective of freedom of expression1 and holding that even hateful speech directed at minorities receives the highest level of constitutional protection.2 The Second Circuit has played a major role in the movement away from the strictures of the law as it existed in the mother country. In some areas, dealing with the clash between claims of national security and freedom of expression, the Second Circuit predated the Supreme Court’s protective First Amendment rulings.
  • Angry Judges

    Angry Judges

    Angry Judges Terry A. Maroney* Abstract Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment—precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. Modern affective psychology, for its part, offers empirical tools with which to determine whether and when anger conforms to Aristotelian virtue. This Article weaves these strands together to propose a new model of judicial anger: that of the righteously angry judge. The righteously angry judge is angry for good reasons; experiences and expresses that anger in a well-regulated manner; and uses her anger to motivate and carry out the tasks within her delegated authority. Offering not only the first comprehensive descriptive account of judicial anger but also first theoretical model for how such anger ought to be evaluated, the Article demonstrates how judicial behavior and decision making can benefit by harnessing anger—the most common and potent judicial emotion—in service of righteousness. Introduction................................................................................................................................
  • District Court Activism in Criminal Justice Reform

    District Court Activism in Criminal Justice Reform

    THE “NEW” DISTRICT COURT ACTIVISM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM JESSICA A. ROTH* Historically, the debate over the judicial role has centered on the consti- tutional and administrative law decisions of the United States Supreme Court, with an occasional glance at the Federal Courts of Appeals. It has, moreover, been concerned solely with the “in-court” behavior of Article III appellate judges as they carry out their power and duty “to say what the law is” in the context of resolving “cases and controversies.” This Article seeks to deepen the discussion of the appropriate role of Article III judges by broaden- ing it to trial, as well as appellate, judges; and by distinguishing between an Article III judge’s “decisional” activities on the one hand, and the judge’s “hortatory” and other activities on the other. To that end, the Article focuses on a cohort of deeply respected federal district judges-many of whom, al- though not all, experienced Clinton appointees in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York–who, over the last decade, have challenged conven- tional norms of judicial behavior to urge reform of fundamental aspects of the federal criminal justice system. These “new” judicial activists have made their case for reform in the pages of their judicial opinions, often in dicta; in articles and speeches; and through advocacy within and beyond the judicial branch. This Article summarizes this activity, places it in historical context, and assesses its value as well as its risks. I. Introduction......................................... 278 II. A Summary of the “New” District Court Activism .... 283 A.
  • Notice-And-Comment Sentencing

    Notice-And-Comment Sentencing

    Article Notice-and-Comment Sentencing Richard A. Bierschbach† & Stephanos Bibas†† Introduction ................................................................................... 2 I. Plea-Bargained Sentencing: Private Deals vs. The Public Interest ......................................................................... 8 A. The Status Quo: Private Deals ........................................ 8 B. Missing: The Public Interest .......................................... 13 C. An Illustration ................................................................ 17 II. Participation and the Public Interest in Administrative Law ......................................................................................... 20 A. Why Participation Matters ............................................ 20 B. How Participation Works ............................................... 25 1. Mechanisms of Participation ................................... 25 2. Participation, Explanation, and Judicial Review ... 29 C. Criminal Law’s Insularity .............................................. 31 III. Crafting a System of Notice-and-Comment Sentencing ..... 34 A. Wholesale or Retail? ....................................................... 35 B. At the Wholesale Level: Arrests, Charging, Plea Bargaining, Guidelines, and Sentencing ...................... 37 C. At the Retail Level .......................................................... 47 † Associate Professor, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. †† Professor of Law and Criminology and Director,
  • Deterring Corporate Crime

    Deterring Corporate Crime

    Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement NYU School of Law 40 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 Deterring Corporate Crime: Effective Principles for Corporate Enforcement April 4-5, 2014 New York University School of Law Lester Pollack Colloquium Room 245 Sullivan Street, 9th Floor Sponsored by the NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement and the American Law Institute II III Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement The NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement promotes research on the effective enforcement of legal rules governing corporate crime and on methods and strategies for enhancing compliance with applicable standards. The program hosts annual conferences and other programs designed to improve our understanding of existing practices and facilitate effective enforcement policy and compliance. The program’s directors are Professors Jennifer Arlen and Geoffrey Miller. IV 1 Deterring Corporate Crime: Conference Program Effective Principles for Corporate Enforcement Sponsored by the NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Deterring Corporate Crime: and the American Law Institute deterrence. Issues to be considered include the appro- Effective Principles for Conference Goal priate scope and content of corporate criminal liability To be effective, corporate criminal and civil enforcement (including oversight liability imposed on parent firms), must deter wrongdoing by corporations and the employees appropriate mandates to impose through pretrial diversion Corporate Enforcement operating
  • Stronger Together Unity in Diversity

    Stronger Together Unity in Diversity

    STRONGER TOGETHER UNITY IN DIVERSITY Annual Dinner 2020 February 26, 2020 Cipriani Wall Street 55 Wall Street New York, NY Presidents of AABANY 1991 1992-93 1994-96 1996-97 1997-98 Serene K. Nakano Denny Chin Sylvia Fung Chin Ben Q. Limb Glenn Lau-Kee 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 John Flock Paul D.Q. Nguyen Alec Y. Chang David Hom Christopher W. Chan 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Andrew T. Hahn Pui Chi Cheng Lai Sun Yee Vincent T. Chang Yang Chen 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 James P. Chou Robert W. Leung Linda S. Lin Jean Lee Mike F. Huang 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Clara J. Ohr William Wang Susan L. Shin Dwight Yoo James R. Cho 2019 2020 Brian W. Song Sapna W. Palla Annual Dinner 2020 · 55 Wall Street · February 26, 2020 6 PM Cocktail Reception in the West Ballroom VIP Cocktail Reception in the Mezzanine 7 PM Dinner and Awards Program 9 PM After Party Honorees Corporate Women’s Leadership Award Leadership Award Alan K.Tse Yen Chu Chief Legal Ocer & Corporate Secretary Chief Legal Ocer JLL, Inc. Equinox Holdings, Inc. Public Service Leadership Award Hon. Sri Srinivasan Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit Asian American Bar Association of New York 1 Program Cocktail Reception in the West Ballroom VIP Cocktail Reception in the Mezzanine Welcome Vivian Lee and James Cho Outgoing President’s Speech Brian W. Song Law Firm Diversity Award Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Corporate Leadership Award Alan K. Tse Global Chief Legal Ocer & Corporate Secretary, JLL, Inc.
  • Department/Agency Name Position

    Department/Agency Name Position

    Department/Agency Name Position Status Date Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Jill Appell Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Pamel G. Bailey Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations C. Fred Bergstein Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Bobbi Brown Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Michael E. Campbell Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Lisa Carty Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Governor Chris Christie Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Michael Ducker Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Mayor Buddy Dyer Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations John B. Emerson Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Bill Frenzel Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Dean Garfield Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Leo W. Gerard Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Joseph T. Hansen Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations James P. Hoffa Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Robert Holleyman Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Sandra Kennedy Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Jim Kolbe Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Fred Krupp Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations David Lane Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Kase Lawal Member Appointed 9/15/2010 Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations Robert A.
  • Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Members by Circuit (As of January 3, 2017)

    Federal Judges Association - Members by Circuit (as of January 3, 2017) 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Bruce M. Selya Jeffrey R. Howard Kermit Victor Lipez Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson Sandra L. Lynch United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby George Z. Singal John A. Woodcock, Jr. Jon David LeVy Nancy Torresen United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs Denise Jefferson Casper Douglas P. Woodlock F. Dennis Saylor George A. O'Toole, Jr. Indira Talwani Leo T. Sorokin Mark G. Mastroianni Mark L. Wolf Michael A. Ponsor Patti B. Saris Richard G. Stearns Timothy S. Hillman William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Joseph N. LaPlante Landya B. McCafferty Paul J. Barbadoro SteVen J. McAuliffe United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Daniel R. Dominguez Francisco Augusto Besosa Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Jay A. Garcia-Gregory Juan M. Perez-Gimenez Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez United States District Court District of Rhode Island Ernest C. Torres John J. McConnell, Jr. Mary M. Lisi William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Barrington D. Parker, Jr. Christopher F. Droney Dennis Jacobs Denny Chin Gerard E. Lynch Guido Calabresi John Walker, Jr. Jon O. Newman Jose A. Cabranes Peter W. Hall Pierre N. LeVal Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Reena Raggi Robert A. Katzmann Robert D. Sack United States District Court District of Connecticut Alan H. NeVas, Sr. Alfred V. Covello Alvin W. Thompson Dominic J. Squatrito Ellen B.
  • Hon. Denny Chin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

    Hon. Denny Chin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

    Judicial Profile VINCENT T. CHANG Hon. Denny Chin U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit WHEN JUDGE DENNY CHIN was sworn in as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2010, he became the only active Asian-American judge on the federal appellate bench. Confirmed by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 98-0 in April 2010, Judge Chin was appointed to the Second Circuit after serving 15 years (and writing 1,600 opinions) on the bench in the Southern District of New York. Judge Chin was a popular choice for the Second Circuit. His induction ceremony was standing-room only, with attorneys travel- ing from China, California, and other far-flung places to attend. In his speech at Judge Chin’s induction ceremony, Bill Kuntz, a partner at Baker & Hostetler, described Judge Chin’s induction as a “particular treasure for served for two years as one of the association’s first the Asian-American community” and “a special jewel leaders back in 1994, Judge Chin has never ceased in the crown that adorns the head of the Statue giving his time, energy and guidance to the organiza- of Liberty.” Indeed, Judge Chin has consistently tion and its members.” Judge Chin’s public service has served the broader community, including Asian- not gone unrecognized. Among the many bar asso- Americans and Asian-American bar groups. While ciation awards he has received are the American Bar in private practice, Judge Chin provided pro bono Association’s Spirit of Excellence Award and the New representation to the Asian-American Legal Defense York County Lawyers Association’s Edward Weinfeld and Education Fund.
  • Visiting Judges

    Visiting Judges

    Visiting Judges Marin K. Levy* Despite the fact that Article III judges hold particular seats on particular courts, the federal system rests on judicial interchangeability. Hundreds of judges “visit” other courts each year and collectively help decide thousands of appeals. Anyone from a retired Supreme Court Justice to a judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade to a district judge from out of circuit may come and hear cases on a given court of appeals. Although much has been written about the structure of the federal courts and the nature of Article III judgeships, little attention has been paid to the phenomenon of “sitting by designation”—how it came to be, how it functions today, and what it reveals about the judiciary more broadly. This Article offers an overdue account of visiting judges. It begins by providing an origin story, showing how the current practice stems from two radically different traditions. The first saw judges as fixed geographically, and allowed for visitors only as a stopgap measure when individual judges fell ill or courts fell into arrears with their cases. The second assumed greater fluidity within the courts, requiring Supreme Court Justices to ride circuit—to visit different regions and act as trial and appellate judges—for the first half of the Court’s history. These two traditions together provide the critical context for modern-day visiting. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38ZK55M67 Copyright © 2019 California Law Review, Inc. California Law Review, Inc. (CLR) is a California nonprofit corporation. CLR and the authors are solely responsible for the content of their publications.
  • United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals for the SECOND CIRCUIT

    16‐1176 Tanvir v. Tanzin United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the fourteenth day of February, two thousand nineteen. PRESENT: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, PETER W. HALL, DENNY CHIN, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., SUSAN L. CARNEY, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. MUHAMMAD TANVIR, JAMEEL ALGIBHAH, NAVEED SHINWARI, Plaintiffs‐Appellants, v. No. 16‐1176 FNU TANZIN, Special Agent, FBI; SANYA GARCIA, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN LNU, Special Agent, FBI; FRANCISCO ARTUSA, Special Agent, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston recused herself from these proceedings. 1 FBI; JOHN C. HARLEY III, Special Agent, FBI; STEVEN LNU, Special Agent, FBI; MICHAEL LNU, Special Agent, FBI; GREGG GROSSOEHMIG, Special Agent, FBI; WEYSAN DUN, Special Agent in Charge, FBI; JAMES C. LANGENBERG, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, FBI; JOHN DOE #1, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #2, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #3, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #4, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #5, Special Agent, FBI; JOHN DOE #6, Special Agent, FBI, Defendants‐Appellees. For Plaintiffs‐Appellants: RAMZI KASSEM (Naz Ahmad, on the brief), CLEAR Project, Main Street Legal Services, Inc., City University of New York School of Law, Long Island City, NY. Jennifer R. Cowan, Erol Gulay, Sandy Tomasik, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY. Shayana D. Kadidal, Baher Azmy, Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, NY.
  • The Structure of Federal Public Defense: a Call for Independence

    The Structure of Federal Public Defense: a Call for Independence

    \\jciprod01\productn\C\CRN\102-2\CRN202.txt unknown Seq: 1 17-JAN-17 12:51 THE STRUCTURE OF FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENSE: A CALL FOR INDEPENDENCE David E. Patton† Independence is a foundational requirement for any good system of public criminal defense. The Constitution guaran- tees anyone charged with a crime the right to a defense attor- ney regardless of ability to pay, and that attorney has the ethical obligation to provide a zealous defense, free from any conflicting outside influence. And yet the system of federal public defense is funded, managed, and supervised by the very judges in front of whom defenders must vigorously de- fend their clients. The arrangement creates serious constitu- tional, ethical, and policy problems. This Article proposes a solution: an independent federal defense agency. The agency proposed, the Center for Federal Public Defense (CFPD), would administer federal defenders’ offices, manage the system of appointed private attorneys, and seek funding from Congress for indigent defense services. In a criminal justice system that relies on its adversarial nature to function properly, it would be inconceivable to have judges decide who is hired in a prosecutor’s office, how much they should be paid, or how and whether prosecutors should investigate individual cases. It would be equally problematic to have the Judiciary act as the voice of the Department of Justice in Congress when explaining resource needs and seeking appropriations. And yet the Judiciary currently does all of those things with respect to the defense function. It should not, and the fix is straightforward: the creation of an independent defender organization.