Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 94 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------ x Jane Doe, ) No. 1:15-mc-01174-JG ) Petitioner, ) ) -against- ) ) United States of America, ) ) Respondent. ) ------------------------------------------------------ x BRIEF OF AMICA CURIAE MARGARET COLGATE LOVE Dated: October 8, 2015 Jones Day By: /s/ Todd R. Geremia OF COUNSEL: Todd R. Geremia Leigh A. Krahenbuhl 222 East 41st Street Jones Day New York, NY 10017.6702 77 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601.1692 Lawrence D. Rosenberg (Pro hac vice admission pending) Paul V. Lettow (Pro hac vice admission pending) 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001.2113 Attorneys for Amica Curiae Margaret Colgate Love Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 95 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 5 I. THE WRIT OF AUDITA QUERELA UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT PROVIDES A BASIS FOR RELIEVING THE COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES OF A CONVICTION ........................................................................ 5 A. Audita Querela Relief May Be Granted Where There Is a Legal Objection to the Continued Enforcement of a Judgment........................................................ 8 B. Audita Querela Relief Could Be Available in a Purely Equitable Context Where the Continued Enforcement of a Federal Criminal Judgment Would Be Unjust ............................................................................................................. 11 C. A Writ of Audita Querela May Be Issued to Provide Either General or Targeted Relief..................................................................................................... 14 II. THE COURT MAY RECOMMEND A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON TO RESTORE AN OFFENDER’S RIGHTS AND REMOVE THE STIGMA OF CONVICTION ................................................................................................................. 15 A. There Are Few Alternatives to Presidential Pardon Under Federal Law to Address the Collateral Consequences of Conviction ........................................... 16 B. Courts Recommended Pardons in English Common Law ................................... 17 C. Courts Have Routinely and Properly Recommended Pardons in the United States .................................................................................................................... 19 D. A Judicial Recommendation for a Presidential Pardon is Potentially Useful and Efficacious..................................................................................................... 23 III. THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN KOKKONEN V. GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA DOES NOT AFFECT AUDITA QUERELA OR A JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON .......... 24 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 25 - i - Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 96 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Balsley v. Commonwealth, 428 S.W.2d 614 (Ky. 1967), overruled on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Hale, 96 S.W.3d 24 (Ky. 2003) .............................................................................................6, 7 Binderup v. Holder, No. 13-cv-06750, 2014 WL 4764424 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2014) .............................................11 Boynton v. Boynton, 186 Mo. App. 713, 172 S.W. 1175 (1914) ..............................................................................13 Bryant v. Johnson, 24 Me. 304 (1844)....................................................................................................................13 Doe v. INS, 120 F.3d 200 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................11 Doe v. Prosecutor, Marion Cnty. Ind., 705 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................11 Doe v. United States, No. 14-MC-1412, 2015 WL 2452613 (E.D.N.Y. May 21, 2015) ...........................................24 Dretke v. Haley, 541 U.S. 386 (2004) .................................................................................................................23 Ejelonu v. I.N.S., 355 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................6, 12 Ex Parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866) ...................................................................................................................15 Foont v. United States, 93 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 1996)...........................................................................................................6 Furst v. New York City Transit Authority, 631 F. Supp. 1331 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) ........................................................................................10 - ii - Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 97 Green v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1977) ...................................................................................................4 Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959) ...................................................................................................................9 Gregory v. Litton Systems, 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cir. 1972) .....................................................................................................4 Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 (1976) .....................................................................................................................9 Humphreys v. Leggett, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 297 (1850) ...................................................................................................12 In re Taylor, 60 Cal. 4th 1019, 343 P.3d 867 (2015) ....................................................................................11 Kindem v. City of Alameda, 502 F. Supp. 1108 (N.D. Cal. 1980) ........................................................................................10 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) .................................................................................................................24 Lewis v. Alabama Dep't Pub. Safety, 831 F. Supp. 824 (M.D. Ala. 1993) .........................................................................................10 Lovejoy v. Webber, 10 Mass. 101 (1813) ................................................................................................................13 Miller v. Carter, 547 F.2d 1314 (7th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................10 Oliver v. City of Shattuck ex rel. Versluis, 157 F.2d 150 (10th Cir. 1946) .................................................................................................13 Pordum v. Board of Regents, 491 F.2d 1281 (2d Cir. 1974)...................................................................................................10 Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974) .................................................................................................................22 Smith v. Bank of Am. Corp., 865 F. Supp. 2d 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) .....................................................................................10 - iii - Case 1:15-mc-01174-JG Document 14-1 Filed 10/08/15 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 98 Smith v. Fussenich, 440 F. Supp. 1077 (D. Conn. 1977) .........................................................................................10 State v. Letalien, 2009 ME 130, 985 A.2d 4 (2009) ............................................................................................11 State v. Williams, 129 Ohio St. 3d 344, 952 N.E.2d 1108 (2011) ........................................................................11 United States v. Angelos, 345 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Utah 2004) ......................................................................................21 United States v. Ayala, 894 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1990) .................................................................................9, 11, 12, 13 United States v. Fonseca-Martinez, 36 F.3d 62 (9th Cir. 1994) .........................................................................................................8 United States v. Ghebreziabher, 701 F.Supp. 115 (E.D. La. 1988) .........................................................................................6, 14 United States v. Grajeda-Perez, 727 F. Supp. 1374 (E.D. Wash. 1989) .............................................................................6, 8, 14 United States v. Haro, CR No. 85-00612 WJR (C.D. Cal. May 30, 1990) ..................................................................13 United States v. Harvey, 946 F.2d 1375 (8th Cir. 1991) .................................................................................................21 United States v. Holder, 936 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................11, 12 United States v. Johnson, 962 F.2d 579 (7th Cir.