Patterson Belknap attorneys dedicate significant time to representing individuals within our criminal justice system, ensuring that they receive fair and fulsome representation. Through our work with the New York County Lawyers Association’s Parole Prep Project, Fordham Law School’s Parole Preparation Project, Appellate Advocates, Legal Aid, and the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, we have represented many individuals in their appeals. We also represented the family of a deceased inmate in an influential case that resulted in systemic change at a prison, with the installation of comprehensive video and audio recording equipment throughout the facility to protect inmates from violence. A few highlights of recent representations are outlined below.
In September 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul granted executive clemency to and commuted the sentence of the firm’s client, David Herion. Mr. Herion served a substantial portion of his lengthy prison sentence and engaged in a variety of therapeutic, vocational, and volunteer programs while incarcerated. He has been a participant and facilitator of violence and crime prevention programs, worked as a health attendant providing hospice care, served as a member of the NAACP branch in his facility, and volunteered with his facility's recreation department. This successful petition for clemency on behalf of Mr. Herion continues the firm’s tradition of representing individuals whose rehabilitative efforts merit reduced sentences.
Patterson Belknap vacated our client’s conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm on the grounds that the police officer violated the client’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to suppress the firearm evidence created new Fourth Amendment law in the state and at the time was the first ruling on this issue in the country.
In July 2021, the firm filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on behalf of several legal service organizations and law professors in Wells v. Warden, a suit in which the plaintiff-appellant seeks a narrow construction of the three strikes provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. As set out in the brief, in certain circumstances, the three strikes provision requires prisoners to pay courts’ full filing fees as an up-front lump sum cost, which many cannot afford. As a result, the provision acts as a de facto ban on litigation, barring even meritorious claims. The brief highlights the financial hurdles borne by people in prison, and the serious constitutional deprivations that can go unheard because of the three strikes provision.
