Renewed War on Drugs, harsher charging policies, stepped-up criminalization of immigrants — in the current climate, joining the NACDL is more important than ever. Members of NACDL help to support the only national organization working at all levels of government to ensure that the voice of the defense bar is heard.
Take a stand for a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system
Contact members of congress, sign petitions, and more
Help us continue our fight by donating to NFCJ
Help shape the future of the association
Join the dedicated and passionate team at NACDL
Increase brand exposure while building trust and credibility
NACDL is committed to enhancing the capacity of the criminal defense bar to safeguard fundamental constitutional rights.
NACDL harnesses the unique perspectives of NACDL members to advocate for policy and practice improvements in the criminal legal system.
NACDL envisions a society where all individuals receive fair, rational, and humane treatment within the criminal legal system.
NACDL’s mission is to serve as a leader, alongside diverse coalitions, in identifying and reforming flaws and inequities in the criminal legal system, and redressing systemic racism, and ensuring that its members and others in the criminal defense bar are fully equipped to serve all accused persons at the highest level.
Showing 1 - 3 of 3 results
Messages from a jury to a judge should be disclosed to counsel. Counsel should be afforded an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responds.
The Fourth Circuit in United States v. Johnson held that defendants were entitled to an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Remmer v. United States to determine if jurors remained impartial after a juror said defendants’ associates took cellphone photos of jurors during trial.
At Lee Christensen’s trial, several jurors reviewed Facebook posts discussing threats of riots and retaliation against jurors if they did not find the defendant guilty. The Iowa Court of Appeals (Iowa v. Christensen) concluded that the extraneous information introduced into the jury room was calculated to – and with reasonable probability did – influence the jury verdict. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Christensen’s new trial motion.