NACDL past president Gerald Goldstein's statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding ensuring the right to counsel even in antiterrorism actions, including with the use of the USA PATRIOT Act.

NACDL board member William Buckman's written statement to the Congressional Black Caucus regarding racial profiling and law enforcement training.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondents

Argument: The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance would be unprecedented. This Court has never used constitutional avoidance to broaden a criminal statute. The government’s proposal would broaden the application of the Section 924(c) Residual Clause. This Court never has used constitutional avoidance to interpret identical language in related statutes to mean different things, as the government has proposed here. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance would reduce the canon to an arbitrary tool with dangerous rule-of-law implications. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance is irreconcilable with the due process right to fair notice. The government’s proposed use of constitutional avoidance fundamentally is at odds with the rule of lenity and the principles of fairness underlying the rule. The rule of lenity requires that ambiguous criminal statutes be construed in the defendant’s favor. Application of the rule of lenity is necessary to uphold the separation of powers and protect principles of fairness.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers In Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

Argument: Over 200 years ago, this Court declared that there are no federal common law crimes. Although that rule remains in place, the intervening years have witnessed the creation of quasi-common law crimes. These are crimes that rest on statutory terms so broad and indefinite that courts are left to define the elements of the offense with little or no guidance from the statutory text. Quasi-common law crimes shift the task of defining what conduct deserves "the moral condemnation of the community" from the legislature, where it belongs, to the courts. This Court has sought to remedy the lack of fair warning inherent in quasi-common law crimes through a process of interpretation that often resembles common law crime definition. Insider trading liability--and, in particular, the liability of tippers and tippees at issue here—has followed the same pattern. In the tipper/tippee insider trading context, therefore--as in the antitrust and honest services contexts--the Court, rather than Congress, has determined the elements of the crime. And as in those contexts, a person seeking to conform his conduct to the law when trading on a tip of nonpublic information will learn virtually nothing from the statutory text. He must turn instead to Dirks' "simple and clear 'guiding principle' for determining tippee liability" and act accordingly. The Court's definition of these and other quasi-common law crimes--its creation of "simple and clear guiding principle[s]" for determining whether an offense has been committed--ameliorates (but does not eliminate) the fair warning danger such crimes present. But the Court's decisions perform that function only if the lower courts treat their operative language as if Congress had included that language in the statute itself. If lower courts can modify the Court's "guiding principles" materially, as the court of appeals did here, and thus broaden the scope of criminal liability, then the lack of fair warning inherent in quasi-common law crimes will remain. It is therefore essential to individual liberty that the Court rigorously police the lower courts' application of its decisions defining quasi-common law crimes. The need for the Court's intervention is particularly acute here, because the court of appeals endorsed an expansion of the tipper/tippee insider trading crime that the Court declined to adopt in Salman.

Brief for the New York Council of Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant-Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: The panel’s ruling is inconsistent with Newman, Dirks and Salman, and undermines the vitality of the "personal benefit" requirement. Constitutional principles counsel against the panel's expansive extension of insider trading law.

NACDL Committee on Technology and Law Enforcement chair Samuel Guiberson's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime regarding the future of internet technologies and related security risks.

Southern Center for Human Rights Director Stephen Bright’s written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (H.R. 912).

NACDL President Lawrence Goldman's letter to House Judiciary Committee chair Representative Jim Sensenbrenner regarding the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (H.R. 912).

Written statement of NACDL second vice president E.E. (Bo) Edwards to the Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Control regarding the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (H.R. 3164, 106th Congress).

NACDL Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair Samuel Buffone's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight regarding the use of federal asset forfeiture.

NACDL President Irwin Schwartz's written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding abolishing the death penalty and crucial steps to take to avoid the risk of executing the innocent.

NACDL President Edward Mallett's written statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines for ecstasy offenses.

NACDL President William Moffitt's written statement to the House Government Reforms Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources regarding mandatory minimum sentencing policies for drug offenses.

NACDL Treasurer Barry Scheck's written statement to the House Government Reforms Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations regarding the effectiveness of state and federal agencies implementing DNA technologies.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondent/Cross Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration

Argument: The majority opinion is out of step with other jurisdictions in the United States, which uniformly have found trial counsel’s failure to investigate and introduce testimony from a credible, neutral alibi witness to be prejudicial. By creating a split on an issue where the courts are otherwise uniform, the majority opinion risks cascading consequences for habeas claims around the nation.