Long-Suppressed Evidence Will Be Key to Jeffrey MacDonald’s Day in Court - Washington, DC (Sept. 14, 2012) – After spending the past 33 years in prison resulting from an unfair trial and a wrongful conviction, former Army Captain and medical doctor Jeffrey R. MacDonald is scheduled to get a meaningful day in court on Monday. The date is fortuitous, yet auspicious –  September 17 is Constitution Day, commemorating the date that the Constitution was signed in Philadelphia 225 years ago.

Powerpoint slides by Wendy Bach and Stephen Ross Johnson. Presented at the NACDL Post-Dobbs Defender Skills Summit in July 2023

NACDL is pleased to see the U.S. Sentencing Commission proposing amendments the Sentencing Guidelines that seek to address the unfair practice of allowing acquitted conduct to be considered as relevant conduct under Sentencing Guideline Section 1B1.3.

Presented by Todd Pugh, criminal defense attorney, Chicago, IL

Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice
January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA

Panel from the 2020 Presidential Summit and Sentencing Symposium, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Law Center American Criminal Law Review

Nearly a half million people, or approximately three percent of Florida's adults, pass through the state's misdemeanor courts each year. Most are found guilty. The average court appearance lasts as little as three minutes. [Released July 2011]

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]

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.

Links to significant reports and research on sex offense laws, sex offender registries and notification laws, and reforms

NACDL advocated for legislation to bolster the due process rights of youth in Maryland.

Coalition letter to members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees regarding proposed reforms to federal forfeiture law.

Amicus Curiae Brief of the Petitioner, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Real Party in Interest.
 

Argument: NACDL, as amicus curiae, submits that Article 52(a)(3), UCMJ, which authorizes non-unanimous verdicts by three-fourths of the voting members in a courtmartial for serious offenses, is unconstitutional on its face. First, military law has long recognized that a military accused has a right to “a fair and impartial panel” which is “a matter of due process” under the Fifth Amendment. United States v. Wiesen, 56 M.J. 172, 174 (CAAF 2001). That is because “[i]mpartial court members are the sine qua non for a fair court-martial.” United States v. Modesto, 43 M.J. 315, 318 (CAAF 1995).

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

Argument: The New York Court of Appeals held that law enforcement may question an individual in custody regarding “pedigree” information without violating Miranda if the questions asked are not “a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation.” Pet. App. 7a. As the Petition explains, the Court should review this holding because it reinforces a deep and abiding conflict of authority regarding the scope of the “booking exception” to Miranda, Pet. 7-12, and because the New York Court of Appeals erred in its approach to that exception, Pet. 12-15.

2012

NACDL frequently writes to members of Congress, the Department of Justice, and the president on fourth amendment issues. These letters have been collected and are available for download by clicking on the titles below.