Publications & Resources
Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.
Search Results
TCP filed an amicus brief in Hinton v. Alabama urging the U.S. Supreme court to review the case. At issue is whether defense counsel is ineffective where the sole evidence against the defendant is based on forensic science and defense counsel does not retain a competent expert to rebut the State’s experts testimony.
TCP filed an amicus brief in Hinton v. Alabama urging the U.S. Supreme court to review the case. At issue is whether defense counsel is ineffective where the sole evidence against the defendant is based on forensic science and defense counsel does not retain a competent expert to rebut the State’s experts testimony.
This brief argues that, if the Court found ineffective assistance of counsel, Titlow was entitled to the benefit of the original plea deal, which her attorney rejected. Though the Court’s finding of no ineffective assistance of counsel meant it never reached the issue, TCP believes the Court should take the earliest opportunity to clarify what relief a defendant is entitled to in such a situation.
This brief argues that, if the Court found ineffective assistance of counsel, Titlow was entitled to the benefit of the original plea deal, which her attorney rejected. Though the Court’s finding of no ineffective assistance of counsel meant it never reached the issue, TCP believes the Court should take the earliest opportunity to clarify what relief a defendant is entitled to in such a situation.
Arguing that the Supreme Court should agree to hear Long v. United States next term. When defense counsel fails to take action based on ignorance of the law, courts should evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on a less deferential standard than when counsel failed to take action for strategic reasons. Supreme Court precedent and a majority of Courts of Appeals agree with this approach.
Arguing that the Supreme Court should agree to hear Long v. United States next term. When defense counsel fails to take action based on ignorance of the law, courts should evaluate ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on a less deferential standard than when counsel failed to take action for strategic reasons. Supreme Court precedent and a majority of Courts of Appeals agree with this approach.
The brief argues that a state must be held responsible for the failure to fund counsel for an indigent capital defendant when determining whether there has been a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The brief argues that a state must be held responsible for the failure to fund counsel for an indigent capital defendant when determining whether there has been a violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.
Brief from former prosecutors arguing that the Court’s groundbreaking right-to-counsel decision in Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively.
Brief from former prosecutors arguing that the Court’s groundbreaking right-to-counsel decision in Padilla v. Kentucky applies retroactively.
