The two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court raise concerns about the government diminishing a person’s rights under the Sixth Amendment. In Khorrami v. Arizona, Ramin Khorrami was convicted for fraudulent schemes and theft by a jury of eight members. An Arizona law allows for criminal defendants to be tried by an eight-person jury, only requiring a twelve-person jury for charges which carry a punishment of death or imprisonment of 30 years or more. In their amicus brief in Khorrami, Rutherford Institute attorneys urged the Supreme Court to prevent the government from arbitrarily reducing the number of individuals on a jury, pointing out that a “jury” has long been understood to require twelve members since the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified.
In Smith v. United States, Timothy Smith was convicted of theft of trade secrets for acts he committed while in Alabama involving computer servers located in the Middle District of Florida. However, Smith was charged and tried in the Northern District of Florida. Smith appealed, noting that he had been tried in the wrong district. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Smith’s conviction. However, the appellate court held that Smith could be retried for the same offense in the proper district without implicating the Double Jeopardy clause. Rutherford attorneys warned that if there is no sufficient consequence to deter the government from selecting an unfair trial location or district, the government could circumvent protections against Double Jeopardy and perpetually retry an accused in one district after another.
Michael Li-Ming Wong, Robert K. Hur, Vladimir J. Semendyai, and Philip Hammersley of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP advanced the arguments in the Smith v. United States amicus brief. Stuart Banner of the UCLA School of Law Supreme Court Clinic advanced the arguments in the amicus brief for Khorrami v. Arizona.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
The amicus briefs in Khorrami v. Arizona and Smith v. United States are available at www.rutherford.org.
Source: https://bit.ly/3wwv8NK
|