Areli's case continues to present the Question Presented that the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review in Glossip, which the parties in that case elected not to pursue at the merits stage. And Areli's case presents the Question that Glossip left open in its sharpest form, because Texas's confession of error is based not merely on a prosecution's failure to correct the perjured testimony of a third-party witness, as in Glossip, but instead on false, misleading, and unreliable DNA evidence that was developed and presented by the State itself.
Russell & Woofter LLC
律师事务所
Washington，DC 181 位关注者
We are a boutique appellate firm, focusing on representation before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals
关于我们
Starting at the nation’s first Supreme Court litigation boutique and continuing as co-founders of Russell & Woofter LLC, Kevin Russell and Daniel Woofter have represented parties in more than 50 merits cases before the Supreme Court and in dozens of high stakes appeals. We bring a wealth of experience, creativity, and flexibility to our representation of clients in a broad range of fields as we pursue and defend important appeals throughout the country and in the Supreme Court. While we represent the full gamut of clients, we take particular pride in representing the little guy, the startups, and the innovators, regularly going up against some of the nation’s most prominent law firms and most powerful institutions. We also take great pleasure in working closely with trial counsel, combining our appellate expertise with co-counsel’s subject-matter experience and deep knowledge of the case.
- 网站
-
https://www.russellwoofter.com/
Russell & Woofter LLC的外部链接
- 所属行业
- 律师事务所
- 规模
- 2-10 人
- 总部
- Washington，DC
- 类型
- 合营企业
- 创立
- 2023
- 领域
- Constitutional Law、Criminal Appeals、Patent Law和Antitrust Law
地点
-
主要
获取路线
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 200
US，DC，Washington，20006
Russell & Woofter LLC员工
动态
-
The petition on behalf of Intervenors Free Press, New America's Open Technology Institute, and Public Knowledge, along with the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, asks the en banc Sixth Circuit to correct a panel opinion that creates a circuit conflict on a question of exceptional national importance: whether broadband internet access service is a “telecommunications service” subject to open-internet rules under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
-
With the help of the Harvard Supreme Court Litigation Clinic that Kevin and Daniel co-teach with Gupta | Wessler LLP each January, the Firm petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Alejandro Martinez, presenting a question that has deeply divided the circuits for decades: Is an otherwise unreasonable use of excessive force permitted under the Fourth Amendment so long as it results in no, or only minor, injuries?
-
The Supreme Court dismissed Facebook’s appeal in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank on Friday, handing a victory to the Firm’s clients who had prevailed in the court below. Kevin argued the case on behalf of investors earlier this month. While we represent the full gamut of clients, we take particular pride in representing the little guy, the startups, and the innovators, regularly going up against some of the nation’s most prominent law firms and most powerful institutions. We also take great pleasure in working closely with trial counsel, combining our appellate expertise with co-counsel’s subject-matter experience and deep knowledge of the case.?
-
Yesterday, I had the honor of arguing on behalf of intervenors Free Press, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society (represented by Andrew Jay Schwartzman), and NARUC (represented by James Bradford Ramsay), in support of the FCC’s Open Internet Rule—requiring broadband internet access service providers to treat all internet traffic equally.
-
Thank you so much!
Yesterday, Deutsch Hunt PLLC filed an amicus brief on behalf of institutional investors iin an important case about required risk factor disclosures for public companies to be argued in November, Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 23-980. Hyland Hunt was counsel of record. As we say in the brief, "Reasonable investors like amici (or their investment managers) apply common sense and ascribe words their ordinary meaning. So reasonable investors understand that when a company describes a risk as merely hypothetical, as Facebook did here, it implies that the risk has not already materialized. A hypothetical event is hardly the same as a past event that already happened. When a company states that a certain event could cause harm if it occurred, but omits that the event has already happened, the securities laws require it to be held responsible for misleading investors." The brief is attached.