The Daily Journal reflects granted amicus status for NIMJ in both Blazier and Medinaand the Nat’l Assoc. of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Blazier.  Here are links to the briefs:

NIMJ in US v. Blazier – Crawford/Melendez-Diaz Confrontation Clause issues.

NIMJ in US v. Medina – constitutionality of Art. 120(c)(2), UCMJ and the affirmative defense of  consent.

NACDL in US v. Blazier(UPDATED) – Crawford/Melendez-Diaz Confrontation Clause issues.

Oral argument was requested and denied in all three instances.

10 Responses to “Amicus Briefs in Blazier and Medina”

  1. John O'Connor says:

    I’m encouraged that NIMJ has dropped any pretense of not being a defense-bar interest group.

  2. Anonymous says:

    We all know this to be true (defense-bar interest group). But isn’t the pretense you mention maintained in their stock “Interest of the Amicus” sections of their briefs?

  3. anonymous says:

    Had NIMJ ever pretended to be anything more than a defense-bar interest group? It seems that to be intellectually honest, they would have to admit that their idealogical foundation is anti-prosecution in every case. For example, NIMJ has never once filed an amicus, arguing for affirmance of a conviction.

  4. anonymous says:

    NIMJ members file amici in the same types cases, and probably some of the same cases, that their members take for a fee. They also lobby on behalf of their clients interests.

  5. For the Record says:

    From my research, it’s true that NIMJ often files amicus briefs on behalf of the defense. However my research also revealed that NIMJ sometimes files briefs that truly are “friend of the court” and not in support of either party, for example, a recent filing in U.S. v. Loving. In Clinton v. Goldsmith, NIMJ wrote a brief supporting the Government’s position that CAAF exceeded its authority in its order that the Air Force couldn’t drop an officer from the rolls.

    As for the assertion about NIMJ members filing amicus briefs to pad their outside cases, I don’t believe NIMJ has members, per se. While we usually expect to see an NIMJ amicus brief on military justice issues before SCOTUS, the most recent case (US v. Denedo) featured 2 NIMJ leaders as Denedo’s counsel, but no NIMJ brief was written for the case.

    Does anyone know if a government appellate office has asked NIMJ to write an amicus on their behalf and been turned down?

  6. Anonymous says:

    It is hard to imagine circumstances warranting an appellate government office asking a defense-bar interest group to write an amicus on behalf of the government.

  7. anonymous says:

    NIMJ doesn’t have members!! STOP EATING MY CHEESY POOFS!

  8. Gene Fidell says:

    NIMJ welcomes inquiries from government and defense about potential amicus briefs.

  9. Anonymous says:

    It is hard to imagine circumstances warranting an appellate government office asking a defense-bar interest group to write an amicus on behalf of the government.

    Maybe it is hard to imagine because folks in the appellate government offices view them as a defense bar incorrectly?

    How about asking and being turned down and then saying, ok, those guys are a defense bar?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Incorrectly? You must be joking.