There are a growing number of sites on the Internet where one can access and download briefs and motions.  For example, FindLaw offers free access to a comprehensive collection of Supreme Court briefs from the 1999-2000 term to date at: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/index.html

For additional sites where briefs filed in Supreme Court cases can be obtained, try the following:

• The American Bar Association site offers briefs in cases decided since the October, 2003 term - but it usually posts the most recent briefs much more quickly than the Findlaw site and it often makes available many amicus briefs that are not available on the Findlaw site.
  
  
• A broad range of Government briefs filed by the Office of the Solicitor General are available on the Dept. of Justice site, including many Supreme Court briefs. Briefs on that site can be searched by keyword, by subject matter and by "type" of brief.

There are also a growing number of commercial sites that offer briefs and motions for fees that seem to change daily.  For example, BriefServe.com (a division of Court Record Services, Inc.) purports to have one of the largest collections of briefs on the Internet - for a fee of $25 per brief (but with a two-brief minimum - or a minimum charge of $50).  The site states that it has briefs available from all of the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal - and from the New York Court of Appeals - but we have experienced great difficulty in tracking down briefs from the New York Court of Appeals.  It helps to know the docket number of the case in question, because the search engines for the commercial sites generally stink.

The NYCBA encourages is members to send noteworthy briefs and motions for inclusion on this site; and, over time, we hope this page will become a useful and comprehensive resource for all of our members.

---

Briefs and Motions Filed in the Martha Stewart Case

Editor's Note: For those who want to follow the Lynne Stewart trial more closely, Cryptome.org posts all the transcripts of the court's proceedings the same day.

Indictment in U.S. v. Stewart, et al. (No. 03 Cr. 717 (MGC)) (S.D.N.Y.)

Martha Stewart's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment, dated October 6, 2003, filed by Robert G. Morvillo, Esq. on October 6, 2003

Government's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss, dated November 4, 2003

Memorandum of Law in Support of Omnibus Pre-Trial Motions, dated November 14, 2003, filed by Robert G. Morvillo, Esq.

Appendix of Exhibits filed in support of Omnibus Motion

"Stewart's Lawyers Seek Dismissal of 2 of 5 Criminal Charges," by Constance L. Hays, The New York Times, October 7, 2003

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for New Trial, dated March 31, 2004, on grounds that one of the Jurors, Chappell Hartridge, violated his oath and lied in order to serve on the jury.

Annexed Affidavits and Exhibits in Support of Motion for New Trial

Notice of Motion (with Exhibits) filed in the Criminal Court of the City of New York seeking to unseal the records in the criminal proceeding of Chappell Hartridge

Government Reply Brief in Opposition to Motion for New Trial

Opinion of Judge Cedarbaum, dated May 5, 2004, denying Motion for New Trial . See, "Martha Stewart is Denied New Trial by U.S. Judge," by Susan Saulny, The New York Times, May 6, 2004.

Memorandum of Law in Support of Martha Stewart's Motion for a New Trial Based Upon Government Misconduct, dated June 10, 2004

Briefs and Other Documents Relating to the Claims by Martin Tankleff For a New Trial based on Claims of a False Confession

"Appeal Questions Role of Son and Police in '88 Killing," by Bruce Lambert, The New York Times, April 16, 2004.

Reply Brief of Defendant Martin Tankleff to the People's Opposition to His Motion to Vacate His Conviction Under CPL § 440

Declarations of Drs. Richard J. Ofske and Richard A. Leo, in Support of Martin Tankleff's Motion for a New Trial Based on a Coerced Confession

Miscellaneous Briefs

Brief filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the lawsuit against the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) and MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc. challenging the high rates and expensive commissions or "kickbacks" that DOCS demands from recipients of collect calls from New York prisoners

Motion to Dismiss the Indictment filed by the Defendants in U.S. v. Jeffrey Stein, No. 05 Cr. 888 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.), the Government's giant tax shelter fraud case brought against the former partners of KPMG. The motion, which is based on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct that "shocks the conscience," was filed on June 6, 2007. For a summary of that Motion, see " Defendants Ask Dismissal Of KPMG Case: Say U.S. Misconduct 'Shocks the Conscience'," by Beth Bar, New York Law Journal, June 12, 2007.