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 23 results
Presented by Alisa Rachelle Blair, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles County Public Defender
Race Matters II: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice January 10-11, 2019 | Los Angeles, CA
This month Samantha Buckingham reviews The Rage of Innocence: How America Criminalizes Black Youth by Kristin Henning.
Brief of Amici Curiae Due Process Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: This case presents the question of whether a defendant's prior conviction for statutory rape under a state law that criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old can subject that defendant to a mandatory 15-year minimum sentence. Last year, the Ninth Circuit considered this question and answered "no." See United States v. Jaycox, 962 F.3d 1066. But in the decision below, the Fourth Circuit answered "yes." See Pet.App.12a-14a. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit increased Petitioner Hardin's mandatory minimum sentence from 5 years to 15 years and doubled the statutory maximum he faces from 20 years to 40. The Court should resolve this clear circuit split, which could subject hundreds of persons per year to thousands more collective years in prison based solely on geographical happenstance. As the petition explains, the Fourth Circuit's decision misinterprets the [*5] relevant statutory term--18 U.S.C. § 2252A (b)(1)'s mandatory sentencing enhancement for prior convictions "relating to . . . abusive sexual conduct involving a minor"--and distorts this Court's settled method for applying the categorical approach to sentencing enhancements. The result is a decision holding conduct that is legal in 39 States and the District of Columbia to be categorically "abusive sexual conduct" under a federal law that subjects a defendant to a 15-year mandatory minimum.
Amended Order Granting Motion for Modification of Term of Imprisonment
Argument: Compassionate Release granted for a stacked 924(c) client. “Based on Walden’s seemingly exceptional personal growth, the severity of his Sentence relative to [his cofedendant]’s and modern sentencing laws, and his age and criminal history at the time of the offenses, the Court concludes that Walden has demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons that could justify reducing the Sentence…The Court thus concludes that requiring Walden to remain in prison pursuant to the Sentence until 2056 would not accomplish the objectives identified by Congress in § 3553.”
Motion for Compassionate Release (Dec. 21, 2020)
Gov Response in Opposition (Jan. 15, 2021)
Def's Reply (Jan. 29, 2021)
Order Granting Compassionate Release (Mar. 30, 2021)
Argument: Hybrid second look/obesity as risk factor victory for Mr. Thornton, sentenced to life at a young age for his part in a drug conspiracy and related murder. While the Order is pretty spare, this is a partial reduction win, from life down to 30 years. The “primary reason appeared to be sentencing disparities among co-defendants and the change in sentencing law from Booker” The Government also conceded E&C based on obesity and Covid.
Order Granting Motion to Reduce Sentence
Argument: Court found youthful offender as a basis for extraordinary and compelling reasons.
Motion (Aug.26, 2021)
Order (Aug. 27, 2021)
Argument: Joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”
Motion (Aug 26, 2021)
Order (Auf. 27, 2021)
Argument: (joint agreement with government, notable because the sentencing change in this case was the removal of the recency criminal-history point from the guidelines, which had moved defendant up a criminal history category; also includes a section 404/crack retro argument because he was eligible, and argued the GL change there too. He had also served a long time and had good equities, and that guideline hook was enough to get some traction. Second look: not just for statutory changes.”
U.S. v. Maumau 20-4056 (10th Cir. April 1, 2021) appealed from No. 2:08-CR-00758-TC-11 (D. Utah)
Argument: Joining the Second, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits in affirming a district court's grant of compassionate release based upon a more expansive reading of "extraordinary and compelling reasons" – here, the First Step Act's elimination of § 924(c)’s stacking provision.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on the Commission’s Proposed Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, dated December 19, 2016 (the “Amendments”). … NACDL adopts the Federal Defender’s comments, and here offers additional comments regarding these topics.
Recent legislative changes to Virginia Code 16.1-272 give the judiciary greater guidance and discretion in sentencing youth convicted of felony offenses in Virginia. This program features an overview of the blended sentencing provisions for juveniles transferred to circuit court followed by a discussion of the new sentencing provisions passed earlier this year.
Coalition letter to Senate Judiciary leadership regarding pending legislation to properly apply sentencing law and further implement the FIRST STEP Act of 2018 and work toward eliminating disparities in an effort to protect vulnerable incarcerated people and promote relief opportunities.
Presented by: Marsha Levick, Co-Founder, Deputy Director, Chief Counsel, Juvenile Law Center; and Dr. Jennifer Woolard, Associate Professor of Psychology, Georgetown University and Research Fellow, Center for Social Justice
Coalition letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Democratic House leadership regarding a proposed ban on flavored tobacco products intended to protect youth but will affect communities of color and those targeted by policing, as addressed in the Protecting American Lungs and Reversing the Youth Tobacco Epidemic Act of 2020 (H.R. 2339).
Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding proposed changes to sentencing and other aspects of human trafficking offenses, as addressed in the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (H.R. 181) and Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation (SAVE) Act of 2015 (H.R. 285).