Appellate Litigation
When a case has gone wrong – because of legal error, unfair process, or a plainly unjust outcome – an appeal may be the only way to achieve justice. The process differs from trial: deadlines are strict, the record is fixed, and success turns on sharp legal analysis and clear written advocacy. Whether the goal is a second chance or a full reversal, the stakes are incredibly high, and there is no margin for error.
Published appellate victories include:
Afrasiabi v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 1103 (2024) (affirming dismissal of defamation action under anti-SLAPP statute)
United States v. Baptiste, 8 F. 4th 30 (1st Cir. 2021) (affirming grant of new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel)
Aguasvivas v. Pompeo, 984 F.3d 1047 (1st Cir. 2021) (affirming grant of habeas corpus petition challenging extradition)
NTV Management, Inc. v. Lightship Global Ventures, LLC, 484 Mass. 235 (2020) (restoring jury verdict awarding treble damages on basis that trial court erroneously found that plaintiff was required to register as “broker-dealer”)
United States v. Windley, 864 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2017) (vacating sentence on basis that prior convictions for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon were not “violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act)
United States v. Mercedes De La Cruz, 787 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2015) (vacating conviction and sentence on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file meritorious motion to suppress)
United States v. Martinez, 762 F. 3d 127 (1st Cir. 2014) (vacating sentence in gun possession case on grounds that Massachusetts simple assault is not a crime of violence for federal sentencing purposes)
United States v. Camacho, 661 F.3d 718 (1st Cir. 2011) (reversing denial of motion to suppress in gun possession case)
United States v. Bryant, 643 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2011) (vacating sentence in drug case on grounds that court should have permitted defendant to be present for re-sentencing and should have considered post-sentence rehabilitation)
United States v. Bryant, 571 F.3d 147 (1st Cir. 2009) (vacating career offender sentence on grounds that court erred in concluding government met its burden to prove predicate for sentence enhancement)
United States v. Vidal-Reyes, 562 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (on issue of first impression, vacating sentence in identity fraud case on grounds that court may consider effect of mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A in determining aggregate sentence)
Berhe v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. 2006) (granting petition for review of final order of removal)
DuPerry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309 (2002) (on issue of first impression, holding that non-adversarial dispositions of not guilty by reason of insanity are subject to the same constitutional protections as guilty pleas)
At Fick & Marx, appellate advocacy is a core strength. We have successfully handled criminal and civil appeals in state and federal courts nationwide.
Our work spans direct appeals from criminal convictions and sentences, habeas petitions, and post-conviction motions, as well as civil appeals involving complex and unsettled legal issues. From challenging a conviction to clarifying the law, we know how to shape the argument, target the record, and move the court.
We represent clients in:
- Criminal and Civil Appeals
- Cert Petitions to the U.S. Supreme Court
- Motions for New Trial
- Habeas Petitions (§§ 2241, 2254 and 2255)
Appeals are always an uphill battle because the law imposes serious obstacles and, candidly, courts are often reluctant to “undo” what other courts have done. Despite those long odds, we will never shy away from even the most difficult appeals, and we have been privileged to forcefully pursue appeals and stand up for important principles in cases that many deemed hopeless.
For example, trial counsel turned to us to represent Michelle Carter after she was convicted of causing the suicide of a young man by her text messages. We represented Ms. Carter on appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and in a petition for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The case received extensive press coverage and was the subject of multiple TV documentaries.
While our appellate efforts on Ms. Carter’s behalf ultimately were unsuccessful, we were honored that she entrusted us with this work and strongly believe that our opening and reply briefs to the SJC and our petition to the U.S. Supreme Court were the best they could be.
A recording of Daniel Marx’s oral argument before the SJC is available here.
Looking for the right legal team?
When you’re facing a serious legal challenge, you need counsel you can trust. Fick & Marx provides experienced, strategic representation in high-stakes criminal and civil matters.