On March 8, 2018, ACS and the National Bar Association held a panel discussion, hosted by George Washington University Law School. The panel covers the extent to which the ubiquity of plea bargains may exacerbate disparate outcomes for people of color, increase the imbalance in power between prosecutors and defendants, affect criminal discovery obligations, risk wrongful convictions, and even contribute to our mass incarceration crisis.
Today, more than 95 percent of cases that end in a conviction are the result of plea bargains. Frequently, defendants accept plea deals to avoid lengthy prison sentences, unaware of the employment, housing, education, and other ramifications of such pleas. Research has also recently revealed significant racial disparities in the plea-bargaining process, with prosecutors more likely to offer charge reductions to white defendants than black defendants. These findings are particularly troubling because, as Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion for the majority in Missouri v. Fry, plea bargaining “is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
ACS and Center for Democracy and Technology present a panel on US v. Microsoft followed by remarks from Senator Chris Coons (D-DE). Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program, American Constitution Society, provides opening remarks.
Featuring:
Debra Perlin, Director of Policy and Program, ACS
Alex Berengaut, Partner, Convington LLP
Jennifer Daskal, Associate Professor of Law, Washington College of Law
Sharon Bradford Franklin, Director of Surveillance and Cybersecurity Policy, New America
Amy Howe (Moderator), SCOTUSblog
Greg Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director of the Freedom, Security, and Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology
Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE) provides closing remarks.
With oral argument in the Supreme Court case of United States v Microsoft slated for February 27, the Supreme Court is poised to make a critical ruling on the extraterritorial reach of U.S. warrants for digital material. At issue is whether the 1986 Stored Communications Act (SCA) applies extraterritorially and thereby allows U.S. law enforcement to access an individual user’s email stored overseas, disregarding the mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) the U.S. has with over 50 foreign governments.
Enacted before there even was the Internet we know today, the conventional wisdom is that the SCA badly needs updating to account for technological advancements that have occurred over the past 30 years. Do SCA warrants compel disclosure of data stored extraterritorially? If so, can foreign legal process compel disclosure of data in the U.S.? What concerns do international governments, law enforcement experts, and human rights advocates have with asking the Supreme Court to resolve this issue?
In the nearly two decades since the controversial 2000 presidential election, numerous commissions have been formed to examine and reform our voting processes. These commissions have issued recommendations on a wide variety of subjects, including voter identification, early voting, and online voter registration, and their influence can be seen in Supreme Court decisions and how we conduct our elections at the federal and local levels. Nearly a year ago, the Trump Administration established a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity,” which was recently dissolved amid controversy and litigation. This development presents an opportunity to better understand how commissions are supposed to function and how they shape election law and voters’ experiences. Have these election commissions made our system more fair, effective and transparent? How and to what extent have they influenced voter confidence in our elections? And what challenges persist in our election processes that might be worthy of examination by such a commission?
Introduction:
Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society
Panelists:
Robert Bauer, Partner, Perkins Coie; Former White House Counsel; Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Atiba Ellis, Professor of Law at West Virginia University; Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights West Virginia State Advisory Committee
Jenni Katzman, Director of Policy and Programs, ACS
Benjamin Ginsberg, Partner, Jones Day; Former National Counsel to Bush-Cheney Campaigns; Co-Chair of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration
Natalie Tennant, Manager of State Advocacy on voting rights and elections at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, Former Secretary of State of West Virginia
On Tuesday, December 12, 2017, the ACS-CREW Presidential Investigation Education Project hosted a panel of constitutional and criminal law experts and discussed issues relating to obstruction of justice in the context of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. The panel discussion features Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Kimberly Atkins, Norm Eisen, Barb McQuade, and Jed Shugerman.
The ACS-CREW Presidential Investigation Education Project is a joint initiative to promote informed public evaluation of the investigation by Special Counsel Mueller and related inquiries.
Reports that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may be examining allegations that the President or his associates attempted to interfere with investigations into Russian influence on the 2016 election have spurred public questions about obstruction of justice law and precedent. What are the major laws governing interference with investigations? Do these laws apply differently to the President, other top Administration officials, and private parties? How do prosecutors build an obstruction of justice case? And what options would Congress and the Special Counsel have if the Special Counsel were to find evidence of obstruction?
Kimberly Atkins, Chief Washington Reporter and Columnist, The Boston Herald (Moderator)
Norman L. Eisen, Chairman, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, former White House Special Counsel on Ethics and Government Reform, and former Ambassador to the Czech Republic
Barbara L. McQuade, Professor from Practice, University of Michigan Law School, and former United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan
Jed Shugerman, Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law
With Remarks by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
This panel focuses on the nuts and bolts of starting, growing, and sustaining your ACS lawyer chapter, and will also be useful for organizing and leading progressive efforts outside of ACS. An expert panel discussed various topics such as membership recruitment, planning a program, working with your affiliated student chapters, and building relationships with diverse legal (and non-legal) organizations in your local community.
While the current state of criminal justice reform may seem dire between a president and attorney general opposed to reform and an increasingly polarized Congress, state and local advocates are stepping up to continue the reform movement. Through reform-minded prosecutors, dedicated criminal defense attorneys, strategic lawsuits, and advocates raising awareness, changes can be made on the state and local level where most incarceration takes place. The panel discusses current criminal justice reform efforts and how attorneys can get involved in this important work.
