On November 6, 2019, funded by a grant from Vital Strategies, NACDL hosted Defending Drug Overdose Homicides in Pennsylvania. This day-long program featured local and national speakers sharing insights and understandings regarding the complexities of drug overdose homicide prosecutions.

The undersigned national, state, and local public health and criminal justice reform organizations write today to urge you to reject and vote NO on the Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl (HALT) Act (H.R. 467). This bill permanently schedules fentanyl-related substances (FRS) on schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) based on a 2 flawed class definition, imposes mandatory minimums, and fails to provide an offramp for removing inert or harmless substances from the drug schedule.

We write to express our opposition to efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act, including any resolution of disapproval or budget rider. The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) is the product of 16 years of research, an expert commission, 51 public meetings, extensive public feedback, and robust negotiation. ... We urge you to oppose these attacks on the RCCA and vote against any resolution of disapproval.

This training program will aid those working to defend persons accused of homicide in drug-related overdose deaths. Each section of the program focuses on a different aspect of these cases. CLE is not available for this program.

Federal public defense issues and developments

This study of the 114^th Congress revisits a 2010 joint report by the Heritage Foundation and NACDL: Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law. This new study found that Congress still regularly introduces bills with new criminal provisions that contain mens rea requirements that are not sufficiently protective. In fact, 42% of the bills analyzed had criminal intent requirements that were considered inadequate. [Released December 2021]

On May 5, 2010, NACDL and The Heritage Foundation released this groundbreaking, non-partisan report. At the release event, NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer described the report as a "blueprint for principled reform" and urged "every elected official to end the madness that has produced over 4,450 federal criminal statutes, and countless tens of thousands more arising from the unchecked power of regulatory authorities." [Released May 2010]

The S Visa is a special program designed to allow law enforcement to provide legal status to remain in the U.S. to non-citizens cooperating with investigations and prosecutions, in exchange for that cooperation. This report and its recommendations shine the light on the failure of government to properly administer the S Visa Program. Currently, eligible individuals who might provide information and cooperation are discouraged, and their attorneys find themselves unable to assure clients of the government’s ability to timely follow through on the exchange. [Released June 2021]

In the wake of the severe cuts to the provision of indigent defense services during sequestration in 2013, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) created a Federal Indigent Defense Task Force to examine the federal indigent defense system. The mission included an assessment of the level of independence afforded to the Office of Defender Services and consideration of whether reforms are necessary to ensure adherence to the ABA’s Ten Principles of a Public Defense Delivery System. [Released September 2015]

NACDL created The Commission to Reform the Federal Grand Jury, drawing on the expertise of a variety of professionals throughout the criminal justice system. Commissioners spent two years examining the need for changes in the grand jury process and produced a Federal Grand Jury Bill of Rights based on their findings. The ten reforms set forth in this Bill of Rights, largely echoing those proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA) more than 20 years ago, would restore balance to the grand jury process and better protect against unwarranted prosecutions. [Released May 2000]

We write to express our opposition to efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia’s Revised Criminal Code Act, including any resolution of disapproval or budget rider. The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) is the product of 16 years of research, an expert commission, 51 public meetings, extensive public feedback, and robust negotiation. … We urge you to oppose these attacks on the RCCA and vote against any resolution of disapproval.

Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.

Argument: In the decision that precipitated the “unanimous verdict” issue here, Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020), NACDL (among others) filed an amicus brief. NACDL’s interest in this issue continues because members of our Armed Forces tried by courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice [UCMJ] are not second-class citizens and do not forfeit their Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights to a unanimous verdict upon donning a military uniform. Pursuant to CAAF Rule 26(b), our amicus curiae brief “bring[s] relevant matter to the attention of the Court not already brought to its attention by the parties...” NACDL’s approach is different regarding the substantive issue, i.e., does the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous verdict in a criminal case, apply to noncapital courts-martial for serious offenses? Alternatively, does the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause require unanimity? Our amicus brief does not duplicate Appellant’s arguments. NACDL takes a different path in arriving at the same conclusion–non-unanimous verdicts in noncapital courts-martial violate the Constitution. NACDL’s position is that Congress, when enacting Article 52(a)(3), UCMJ, provided for non-unanimous verdicts–as in Ramos–by “the concurrence of at least three-fourths of the members present when the vote is taken” –which contravenes what the Constitution commands, viz., a unanimous verdict. Article 52(a)(3), UCMJ, is therefore unconstitutional on its face.

Amicus Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant.

Argument: [T]his case raises fundamental constitutional issues implicating Appellant’s right to have his Fifth Amendment right to Brady material and his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process in securing evidence from MAB’s [the complainant] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [USCIS] Alien File [A-File] produced for an in camera judicial review. That was necessary to protect Appellant’s right to confront his accuser, to include impeaching her at trial. Finally, this case implicates Appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. NACDL is not alleging ineffective assistance of counsel [IAC], but rather that Appellant’s Trial Defense Counsel [TDC] was improperly thwarted by the government’s opposing his request for an immigration law expert to assist the defense, which the military judge denied, as well as access to her A-File.

On behalf of NACDL, I urge you to pass the bipartisan Effective Assistance of Counsel in the Digital Era Act, H.R. 546/S. 3524, before the 117th Congress adjourns. The bill ensures that email communications between people in Federal Bureau of Prisons custody and their legal teams are protected with the same privilege as legal visits, letters, and phone calls. This legislation passed in the House with overwhelming bipartisan support in a 414-11 vote. The action by the House and bipartisan sponsorship for the Senate bill indicates a high level of support for this common-sense reform.