For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1 - 39

Amicus Matters
T
he persuasive value of an amicus brief was creatively
demonstrated last year when the satirical media company
The Onion made its first amicus filing in support of a petition
for writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is
Novak v. City of Parma (No. 22-293). The petitioner in that case
brought a civil rights action against his local police department
after officers arrested and prosecuted him for creating a Facebook
page that parodied the department by, among other things,
" advertising " free abortions in a police van and a " pedophile
reform " event that enabled offenders to be removed from the
sex offender registry. In its amicus filing,1
The Onion blended
satire and legal argument in strong defense of the petitioner and
his contention that First Amendment freedoms apply to speech in
the nature of parody. The brief mocked lawyers' affinity for Latin
phrases, poked fun at the nature of legal writing, and offered
pithy examples of parody, all in support of the conclusion that a
reasonable reader recognizes parody when he or she sees it and
therefore parody without a disclaimer is protected speech. The
brief drew national attention and has been hailed as the funniest
amicus brief ever filed.
PACDL's Amicus Committee likewise draws on its members'
special skills and talents in developing, drafting, and editing
persuasive " friend of the court " briefs supporting the interests
of PACDL and its members. Over the past year, the Committee
submitted amicus briefs in eight cases. These filings and PACDL
amicus briefs filed in other matters are available to members on
the PACDL website.
Donna A. Walsh
Most recently, PACDL submitted an amicus brief in the U.S.
Supreme Court in support of a petition for writ of certiorari
filed on behalf of Alexis Fernando Barradas-Jacome, a Mexican
national who entered the country lawfully with his family as a
child under a tourist visa and later secured the benefits of the
" Dreamer " program. Based on a guilty plea to a charge of theft
by receiving stolen property in violation of the Pennsylvania
statute, Mr. Barradas was deemed subject to expedited removal
from the United States under a federal law that renders persons
convicted of an " aggravated felony " permanently inadmissible
and categorizes as an " aggravated felony " certain " theft
offense[s] (including receipt of stolen property) . . . . " 2
Mr. Barradas
challenged application of the federal statute to his conviction.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied his appeal
and held that his conviction under the receiving stolen property
statute was a categorical match to the generic theft offense
in the federal statute and therefore rendered him summarily
removable.
In his petition for writ of certiorari, Mr. Barradas argued that
the Third Circuit erred when it relied on its own interpretation
of Pennsylvania state law, rather than Pennsylvania state courts'
broader, even if atextual, interpretation of the receiving stolen
property offense. PACDL supported this position in its amicus
filing. In the brief, PACDL traced the origin of the receiving stolen
property statute and the evolution in Pennsylvania caselaw
concerning the mens rea necessary for a conviction under the
statute, particularly noting language in state court opinions which
suggests incorrectly that objective evidence of a defendant's
Vol. 8, Issue 1 l For The Defense 39
For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 8, Issue 1
