Renewed War on Drugs, harsher charging policies, stepped-up criminalization of immigrants — in the current climate, joining the NACDL is more important than ever. Members of NACDL help to support the only national organization working at all levels of government to ensure that the voice of the defense bar is heard.
Take a stand for a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system
Contact members of congress, sign petitions, and more
Help us continue our fight by donating to NFCJ
Help shape the future of the association
Join the dedicated and passionate team at NACDL
Increase brand exposure while building trust and credibility
NACDL is committed to enhancing the capacity of the criminal defense bar to safeguard fundamental constitutional rights.
NACDL harnesses the unique perspectives of NACDL members to advocate for policy and practice improvements in the criminal legal system.
NACDL envisions a society where all individuals receive fair, rational, and humane treatment within the criminal legal system.
NACDL’s mission is to serve as a leader, alongside diverse coalitions, in identifying and reforming flaws and inequities in the criminal legal system, and redressing systemic racism, and ensuring that its members and others in the criminal defense bar are fully equipped to serve all accused persons at the highest level.
Showing 1 - 15 of 24 results
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an increase in the offense level for most fraud or theft offenses based on the amount of “loss” determined by the court. Loss is not defined in the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the commentary defines loss as “the greater of actual loss or intended loss.” Megan Siddall explores a new argument that loss should be limited to actual loss – and not intended loss – in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor v. Wilkie.
Federal statutes should provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, but the term “property” is undefined by the federal fraud statutes. The internet, untethered digital currency, and the metaverse are raising questions about the traditional understandings of things and possessions. Legislators need to provide greater clarity about how older statutes apply to newer concepts.
Leveraging Data to Defend Against Healthcare Fraud, PPP Fraud, and Other Enforcement Actions featuring Murad Hussain (Arnold & Porter), Lloyd Liu (Bennett Doyle LLP), Hilary LoCicero (Bennett Doyle LLP), and Greg Russo (BRG)
A post-indictment dismissal is rare. The authors walk readers through United States v. Rocket Learning, pointing out that the government’s retreat in the fraudulent billing case was bittersweet because a profitable business is defunct, and dozens of employees are still picking up the pieces of their lives.
DOJ has had mixed success in the prosecution of traders. Where is the dividing line between illegal activity and savvy trading? Susan Brune and Erin Dougherty review the major categories of recent prosecutions and highlight the key issues that have presented obstacles to conviction – and opportunities for the defense.
The CARES Act included the creation of the Paycheck Protection Program for forgivable loans to small businesses. The basis for prosecutions will be the certifications in the PPP applications. Sarah Wirskye outlines steps borrowers can take that will help them prove that the certifications are accurate.
Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding USSC priorities in the current (2014) amendment cycle.
Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines.
Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing ("CAN-SPAM") Act of 2003.
Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on proposed 1997 Emergency Amendments.
Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments pertaining to diminished capacity and theft, fraud and tax loss tables.
Brief Amicus Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant Wayne Wilkerson.
Argument: The district court erred by not requiring mens rea, which is a cornerstone requirement for criminal liability and punishment. The district court erred in premising the fraud convictions on non-disclosure absent any cognizable duty to disclose.
The U.S. Supreme Court saved 18 U.S.C. § 1346 and the honest-services doctrine from the void-for-vagueness dust heap in Skilling v. United States. Jonathan Jeffress and William Zapf explore certain “limiting principles” courts have followed that may be avenues for challenging an honest-services prosecution. In addition, they include a brief survey detailing how circuit court pattern jury instructions cover honest-services fraud.
Jennifer Bouriat provides an overview of the mail and wire fraud statutes and the right to control theory, a brief history of the pertinent case law that has shaped the theory, and an overview of the circuit split on the validity of the theory. She offers key points to consider in defending a mail and wire fraud case.