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

from Capital Sentencing and the Graham-Miller Resentencing to Sentencing in all Cases

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

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

Reports and other resources related to juvenile justice.

The recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Graham, Miller and Jackson have greatly affected the sentencing of juveniles and all aspects of representing a juvenile client in adult court.

NACDL fully supports the concept that juveniles are different than adults and should be treated as such. NACDL encourages legislators to promote polices that evaluate juvenile family history and brain development prior to developing legislation that could in effect have profound implications on a juvenile's future.

Trial Defense Guidelines: Representing a Child Client Facing a Possible Life Sentence. Published by the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth (February 2015).

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

NACDL is working with a coalition of advocates to end life without parole sentencing for youth in Michigan.

NACDL supports legislation to end the automatic charging of youth in adult criminal court.

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

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.

Co-Sponsored by Georgetown University Law Center’s American Criminal Law Review

The landscape of sentencing policy has shifted in recent years, with federal and state lawmakers advocating fewer draconian penalties and beginning to scale back certain sentences. It is clear that the United States stands at a critical juncture for sentencing reform. This symposium is designed to equip practitioners and policy advocates with the latest strategies and research to seize the moment and foster more rational and humane policies.