- Comments to USSC on Proposed Priorities for the 2025-2026 Amendment Cycle (July 2025)
- Comments to USSC on Applying Drug Offenses Amendment Retroactively (June 2025)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed Sentencing Enhancements Involving Fentanyl and Other Opioids (May 2025)
- Comments to the Sentencing Commission on Proposed 2025 Amendments (Mar 2025)
- Comments to the Sentencing Commission on Proposed 2025 Amendments (Feb 2025)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed Priorities for the 2024-2025 Amendment Cycle (July 2024)
- Comments on Applying Recent Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines Retroactively (June 2024)
- Comments to Sentencing Commission on Proposed 2024 Amendments (Feb 2024)
- Coalition Letter to USSC on the Trial Penalty as a Priority (November 2023)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed Priorities for the 2024 Amendment Cycle (August 2023)
- Comments to USSC on Retroactivity of the Criminal History Amendment (June 2023)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed Amendments to Guidelines, Policy Statements & Commentary (March 2023)
- Statement to USSC on Proposed Guideline Amendments Related to Acquitted Conduct (February 2023)
- Comments to the USSC on Priorities for the 2023 Amendment Cycle (October 2022)
- Letter to the USSC on Priorities for the 2019 Amendment Cycle (August 2018)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2017 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (February 2017)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2016 Amendments (March 2016)
- Written Statement to USSC on Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (November 2015)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2015 Amendments (March 2015)
- Comments to USSC on Retroactivity of Amendment 3 (July 2014)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2014 Amendments (March 2014)
- Letter to the USSC on Priorities for the 2014 Amendment Cycle (July 2013)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2013 Amendments (March 2013)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2012 Amendments (March 2012)
- Statement to USSC on Federal Sentencing Since the Booker Decision (February 2012)
- Statement to the USSC on Applying the Fair Sentencing Act Retroactively (June 2011)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2011 Amendments (March 2011)
- Statement to USSC on Proposed Permanent Amendments to the Guidelines (March 2011)
- Comments to USSC on Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (October 2010)
- Statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing (May 2010)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2010 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (March 2010)
- Comments to USSC on Cocaine and Federal Sentencing Policy (November 2006)
- Comments on USSC Sentence Reduction Motions (July 2006)
- Coalition Comments to USSC on Proposed 2006 Amendments (March 2006)
- Testimony to USSC on Amending Commentary on Waiving Attorney-Client Privilege (March 2006)
- Coalition Comments to the USSC on Priorities for the 2006 Amendment Cycle (August 2005)
- Letter to the USSC on Proposed 2005 Amendments in Light of the Booker Decision (March 2005)
- Comments with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to USSC on CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (March 2004)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2004 Amendments (February 2004)
- Statement to USSC on Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (March 2003)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 2003 Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (March 2003)
- Coalition Letter to USSC on Cocaine Sentencing (February 2003)
- Statement to USSC on Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines (March 2002)
- Statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on Proposed Ecstasy Sentencing Guidelines (March 2001)
- Comments to USSC on Proposed 1997-1998 Amendments (April 1998)
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1997-1998 Amendments (April 1997)
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1997 Amendments (March 1997) - Part II
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1997 Amendments (March 1997) - Part I
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1997 Emergency Amendments (February 1997)
- Letter on USSC Proposed 1997 Emergency Amendments (February 1997)
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1997 Amendments (December 1996)
- Comments on USSC Rules of Practice and Procedure (December 1996)
- Comments to USSC on the Federal 100-to-1 Crack-Powder Cocaine Sentencing Disparity (April 1995)
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1994 Amendments (March 1994)
- Comments on USSC Proposed 1993 Amendments (March 1993)
Explore keywords to find information
RECENTLY ADDED & UPCOMING
-
The Champion
July 2025
Lawyers can use Generative AI for filtering and brainstorming, but they should exercise caution when trying to create original content.
-
Amicus Brief
Ellingburg v. United States
Brief of NACDL and FAMM as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
-
News Release
News Release ~ William R. Gallagher Champion of Justice
Nation’s Criminal Defense Bar Presents Champion of Justice Award to Cincinnati, Ohio Attorney William R. Gallagher – Washington, DC (July 14, 2025) – Cincinnati, Ohio Attorney William R. Gallagher was awarded the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) Champion of Justice Legal Education Award at the association’s annual meeting in Minneapolis, MN.
-
Event
2025 Federal Sentencing CLE
The 34th Annual Honorable Elizabeth A. Kovachevich National Seminar on Federal Sentencing
LOCATION: Drury Plaza Hotel-Disney Springs, Lake Buena Vista, FL
DATES: July 30-August 1, 2025 -
Webinar
SCOTUS Criminal Law Term in Review – What Defense Attorneys Need to Know [Engage & Exchange]
EXCLUSIVE NACDL MEMBER BENEFIT
WHEN: Wednesday, July 23, 2:00-3:30pm ET / 11:00am-12:30pm PT
CLE CREDIT: not available
COST: Free
This is a sponsored ad

MyCase
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Featured Products
-
Challenging Carceral Forensic Software
This program arms defense attorneys with the legal strategies and technical understanding needed to challenge software evidence at every stage: expert qualifications, reliability under Rule 702, confrontation rights, discovery, due process, and more. You'll learn how to cross-examine government witnesses who rely on black-box technology they don’t truly understand—and how to force the court to take a closer look at what's really driving forensic conclusions. Learn how STRmix, TruleIO, ShotSpotter, and AI-generated sketches are marketed as scientifically validated, yet often evade scrutiny.
-
Pattern Cross-Examination for Digital Forensic Experts
This guide provides ready-to-use cross-examination questions, categorized by artifact type and case theme—from cell phone towers to deleted texts to smart devices and cloud forensics. Whether you’re handling a case involving child exploitation, stalking, or online fraud, this book delivers practical patterns designed to highlight sloppy forensics, bias, tool limitations, and assumptions of intent or identity. Defense attorneys don’t need a computer science degree—they need strategy, control, and the right questions to challenge the illusion of digital certainty in court.
-
Using Chat GPT in Criminal Cases - Writing Better Prompts
Want a motion written in plain language but grounded in Tennessee case law? Need a summary of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with primary and secondary citations? This is where you learn how to get that—on demand, and with far less editing. This training is designed specifically for attorneys—busy professionals who need fast, accurate, and case-relevant AI support. Whether you’re drafting motions, brainstorming legal strategy, summarizing complex case law, or preparing cross-examinations, the quality of your AI output comes down to one thing: how you ask for it.
-
Alcohol, Blackouts and Consent in Sex Cases
This comprehensive training program provides defense attorneys with a rigorous, science-backed approach to dismantling prosecutorial narratives, exposing unreliable testimony, and ensuring that juries are properly educated on the complexities of memory, intoxication, and consent. You'll explores critical mistakes and misconceptions encountered in these cases, including errors in memory reconstruction after an event, incorrect inferences, cognitive schemas, suggestibility, contamination and misinformation, mistakes of fact and more.
-
Overcoming the Presumption of Guilt and Defining Reasonable Doubt
Reasonable Doubt, what is it?
In order to win criminal cases, the defense practitioner must object to a reasonable doubt standard that lowers the burden of guilt. This program will discuss proven methods to argue and define reasonable doubt persuasively to a jury. You’ll learn how define reasonable doubt using metaphors and hypothetical scenarios that force juries to dispute the evidence, conflicts in the evidence, or even lack of evidence in your case.
-
The DIY of DNA: Exoneration Through DNA Evidence
This presentation might be the first time you’re truly able to truly grasp the fundamentals of DNA evidence. This critical presentation blends real-world storytelling with clear, practical instruction—making DNA evidence finally feel accessible, even to non-scientists—while inspiring attorneys to dig deeper, ask smarter questions, and approach forensic science with newfound confidence. You’ll learn how to identify and interpret electropherograms, understand autosomal vs. Y-STR testing, and recognize the limits of DNA evidence—particularly when it involves partial or mixed samples.