NACDL to Focus on Service and Support for Members, Clients, and Community Throughout Virus EmergencyLearn More
Pre-Trial Suppression & Fourth Amendment Issues
This Trial Guide is a topical and practical handbook examining the nuts and bolts of the most current Fourth Amendment & Pre-Trial Suppression issues encountered in modern criminal cases.
Defense Counsel Playbook for Eyewitness ID Cases
This Trial Guide was written to help counsel use existing case law to its strongest advantage, and to create a framework for appellate challenges urging courts to adopt leading cases.
Ultimate Cross 2.0
This special CLE compilation program includes the highest-rated presentations on Cross-Examination techniques from NACDL's most recent seminars (2017-2019).
Forensic Sciences in Criminal Cases: A Multidiscipline Primer
In order to challenge forensic evidence, experts, reports and findings commonly encountered in the courtroom, an attorney must first have a basic understanding of the forensic issues that they will be confronting.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place
Auman v. State
In the instant case, the lack of a causal link between the defendant's actions and murder committed by third-party after defendant was already in police custody does not support felony murder conviction; causation must be an element of proof for felony murder because it restricts the reach of the felony murder rule to those cases where defendant's liability is consistent with established principles of criminal responsibility.
Crawford v. Washington
U.S. Supreme Court Amicus curiae brief of NACDL, ACLU and ACLU of Washington.
Argument: The Court (Scalia, J.) ruled 7-2 that the Sixth Amendment "commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination." 124 S.Ct. at 1370. The Court emphasized that Confrontation Clause protection only applies to "testimonial" out-of-court statements, such as statements against penal interest (the statement at issue in this case). Encouragingly, the Court acknowledged its ruling creates some tension with other hearsay exceptions, such as spontaneous ("excited") utterances; the Court specifically refused to decide whether the Sixth Amendment incorporates an "historical" exception for dying declarations.