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 - 15 of 121 results
No lawyer did more in the past half century to define the defense function than Albert Krieger.
The decision in Padilla v. Kentucky is 10 years old. Since the Supreme Court issued its opinion, there has been a recognition that the massive network of collateral consequences that flows from a criminal conviction must be dismantled.
Inside NACDL
On September 9, 2015, NACDL released a report titled “Federal Indigent Defense 2015: The Independence Imperative.” The report articulates seven fundamental principles that are essential to ensure a robust federal indigent defense system.
The success of NACDL’s work depends on the organization’s ability to field a first-rate team. NACDL recently elected two new board members and filled several staff positions.
A case in the Eastern District of Virginia, United States v. Chatrie, involves a geofence warrant, which is a warrant seeking Google cellphone location data so that the police can identify individuals who were in a particular location during a defined window of time.
Mercy does not surface often on death row. That is what makes the story of Jason McGehee so remarkable.
Capital punishment is on the wane. Executions and the number of states that permit capital punishment both declined in 2012. Moreover, the ABA Death Penalty Due Process Review Project identified 12 distinct flaws that are prevalent in jurisdictions that still allow capital punishment. These flaws create an unacceptably high risk of injustice and inadequate safeguards to minimize the potential that innocent people will be executed.
It is now conventional wisdom that eyewitness identifications can be notoriously unreliable. But what about identifications by witnesses who believe the perpetrator is someone familiar? Are their identifications reliable? Empirical evidence and an array of DNA exonerations have confirmed that familiarity does not eliminate misidentification problems. Consequently, courts should permit expert testimony to assist the jury in properly assessing the reliability of all eyewitness evidence, regardless of whether the witness claimed the suspect was familiar.
The results of the first phase of a project to review FBI microscopic hair analysis testimony and lab reports produced the staggering revelation that FBI examiner testimony in at least 90 percent of the trial transcripts analyzed contained erroneous statements. This development likely will serve as a milestone in the quest for forensic science reform.
Is the exclusionary rule needed to deter illegal police searches?
In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement may conduct GPS surveillance 24 hours a day and seven days a week without probable cause and without judicial oversight.
In March 2015, NACDL joined a lawsuit challenging the National Security Agency’s mass intercepting and searching of Americans’ international Internet communications, including emails and Web browsing content.
A judge, while presiding over a case at Guantanamo, secretly negotiated for a job as an immigration judge in the U.S. Department of Justice (Executive Office for Immigration Review). Thus, the judge presided over a case in which his potential employer appeared. That alone should be sufficient grounds to require disqualification.
The decisions in Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper are likely to prompt prosecutors to routinely convey plea offers in writing or place those offers on the record.