Appeals
We believe that presenting a strong appeal is an art form—you must be able to tell a story and bring life to the tale of the trial. It requires not only mastery of the law but also the ability to craft a compelling narrative from the record.
Our attorneys have briefed and argued appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals across the country, including briefing and filing Petitions for Writ of Certiorari before the Supreme Court of the United States. We also represent defendants in post-conviction litigation before both district and appellate courts.
As trial lawyers, we bring a distinct perspective to appellate work—one grounded in firsthand understanding of how issues develop in the courtroom. We are meticulous in digesting the trial record, examining pre-trial, trial, and post-trial motions, and isolating the issues most likely to resonate with appellate judges.
Our attorneys stay current on evolving precedent to ensure that each argument is both legally sound and strategically persuasive. We dedicate substantial research and analysis to selecting the issues most deserving of review and to presenting them with clarity, precision, and force.
Examples of issues we have litigated in appeals in various United States Courts of Appeal and in Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court include:
Whether a law enforcement officer may give lay opinion testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 based on overall investigation of the case; that is, testimony not personally known to the officer and testimony based on facts not presented to the jury.
Whether the district court erred by not limiting statements of third-party declarants offered under the state-of-mind exception permitted by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3).
Whether the district court erred in not suppressing the Appellant’s electronic data files searched by federal agents without a warrant and all the fruits of that illegal search, and further erred in failing to analyze the scope of the search necessary to deny to an individual the protection of the Fourth Amendment under the private search doctrine as it applies to electronic data files.
Whether the district court’s sentence was procedurally erroneous under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007), in applying the Sentencing Guidelines.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in entering an order of restitution in light of its procedural error when it calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range for loss.
Whether the prosecution’s duty-to-discover under Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995) extends to its cooperating witness, who covertly provides information to the government pursuant to a plea/cooperation agreement and who possesses exculpatory information, or is a limitation of the prosecution’s duty-to-discover to only police officers and government agents a violation of the government’s obligations under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and Brady v. Maryland.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Appellant’s motion for mistrial in response to the government’s eliciting irrelevant and unduly prejudicial testimony from a government witness, and whether the government’s eliciting of this testimony was intentional.
Whether the district court should rely on actual loss versus intended loss at sentencing.
Other Practice Areas