| Home | Practice Areas | Appeals I've Handled | My Résumé | Civil Liberties Advocacy | Articles and Commentaries |
NOTE: In order to present some of these briefs in the HTML format, I've had to make a few minor alterations. For example, footnotes in the original briefs appear as endnotes here; tables of contents now consist of hyperlinks rather than references to page numbers; tables of authorities have been omitted; and appendices have been omitted.
Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana v. United States, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed June 12, 2008): I coauthored this petition with lead counsel Greg Anton. The petition seeks U.S. Supreme Court review of our clients' argument that the federal government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance -- the category reserved for drugs that are highly dangerous and have no accepted medical use -- lacks a rational basis and therefore violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The petition is pending.
Esquibel v. California, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed March 20, 2007): We challenged my client's conviction on the ground that the trial court's exclusion of two of his friends from the courtroom during one witness's testimony, at the prosecution's request and over defense objection, violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The California Court of Appeal issued a published opinion, People v. Esquibel (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 645, rejecting that argument. The California Supreme Court denied review. This petition asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In the alternative, it asked the court to vacate the Court of Appeal's judgment and remand the case for correction of an error in sentencing procedure. The Court granted the latter relief in Esquibel v. California (2007) ___ U.S. ___ [127 S.Ct. 2882, 167 L.Ed.2d 1150].
Samson v. California, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed April 12, 2005): This petition sought U.S. Supreme Court review of my client's argument that, under the Fourth Amendment, it was illegal for a police officer to conduct a search of my client's person for no reason other than that my client was on parole. The California Court of Appeal had rejected the argument and affirmed my client's conviction, and the California Supreme Court had denied review. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on September 27, 2005. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the California Court of Appeal's judgment by a 6-to-3 vote in Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843.
People v. Arenz, Appellant's Opening Brief (filed May 24, 2002): My client was a former passenger in a car in which police found chemicals that can be used to make hydriodic acid, which in turn can be used to make methamphetamine. My client was convicted of possession of hydriodic acid with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. This brief sought reversal of my client's conviction on the ground that there was insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
People v. Beasley, Appellant's Opening Brief (filed January 29, 2002): My client was convicted of 14 felony counts and 6 misdemeanor counts, all related to domestic violence. This brief argued that five of the felony convictions must be either reversed or modified because they were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that five of the misdemeanor convictions must be reversed because they were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeal reversed or modified the convictions on nine of those ten counts in a published opinion, People v. Beasley (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1078.
Flowers v. California, Petition for Writ of Certiorari (filed January 25, 2000): My client was sentenced, under the Three Strikes law, to life imprisonment (with a minimum of 25 years before parole) for failing to notify the police of a change of address within five working days as required by the sex offender registration law. On appeal, we argued that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; the judgment was affirmed. This petition asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Court denied the petition.
People v. Hampton, Appellant's Opening Brief for Darrell Williams (filed December 3, 1998): This brief sought reversal of my client's conviction on the grounds that (1) a codefendant's confession that inculpated my client was introduced at the joint trial, in violation of my client's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him; and (2) the trial judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury that the testimony of a witness to whom the People had granted use immunity should be regarded with distrust. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction in a published opinion, People v. Hampton (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 710.
People v. Hoke, Appellant's Opening Brief (filed December 2, 1994): This brief sought reversal of my client's conviction on the grounds that (1) the prosecution of this action after his conviction and sentence in a related case violated the prohibition on multiple prosecution and (2) the evidence against him was obtained by way of an illegal arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction on the first ground.
O'Connor v. California Medical Ass'n, Respondent's Brief (filed November 13, 1991): Our clients were sued for defamation; we won summary judgment; and the plaintiff appealed. This brief argued for affirmance on the grounds that the plaintiff was a public figure and had not produced evidence of constitutional malice. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
Martin Kassman / marty@kassman.com
© Martin Kassman 2007