United States Supreme Court – Amy Files Rare Supplemental Brief After Argument
Late yesterday, we filed an unusual supplemental brief after argument in our Supreme Court case Paroline v. Amy Unknown.
The purpose of the brief is to discuss the Court’s decision in Burrage v. United States, No. 12‑7515, which was decided January 27, 2014—just five days after Amy argued her case to the Supreme Court. Burrage analyzes “contributing cause” in the context of determining criminal liability. While Amy did not have the benefit of having read the Burrage decision before oral argument, it appears that the Court may have asked a number of questions based on the decision.
Now that the Burrage opinion was released, it does not support the arguments made by Paroline in his earlier submissions to the Court. Instead, properly understood, contributing cause analysis from tort law supports Amy’s position. Our brief clarifies this distinction to the Court in what has become a critical issue in the case.
Both the Government and Paroline will have a chance to respond if the Court grants our motion and accepts our supplemental brief after argument. Here is our brief.[gview file=”https://www.childlaw.us/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Amys-Supplemental-Brief-After-Argument.pdf”]