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
Speakers: Stephen Harper, Paul Mones
NACDL endorses the proposed Trial Defense Guidelines for Representing a Child Facing a Possible Life Sentence, and recommends that in any jurisdiction which permits the imposition of life sentences upon a child, the public and private defense bar should advocate to ensure that these standards are implemented and that the jurisdictions prosecuting those cases provide adequate resources to ensure compliance with these guidelines
Keynote speakers from the 2020 Presidential Summit and Sentencing Symposium, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Law Center American Criminal Law Review
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Mississippi Office of the State Public Defender, and Mississippi Public Defenders Association In Support of Petitioner.
Argument: The Supreme Court has held that life without parole is appropriate only for a “permanently incorrigible” juvenile offender. States like Mississippi that do not require a finding of permanent incorrigibility are not reliably implementing that command because offenders receive life-without-parole sentences even if they are capable of change. Mississippi’s approach also produces arbitrary sentencing outcomes, because a juvenile’s sentence depends on whether his sentencer independently comprehends Miller, not on whether he is actually permanently incorrigible. States that require a finding of permanent incorrigibility ensure that juvenile offenders only receive life-without-parole sentences when the sentence is proportionate and lawful. Sentencers can still impose life-without-parole sentences when an offender is actually permanently incorrigible.
Advocacy Call on Juvenile Life Without Parole
Three webcasts providing essential instruction for defense lawyers representing juveniles in adult court, supported by funding from the Foundation for Criminal Justice and the Ford Foundation.
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.
Brief of Amici Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. Supporting Respondent Jerri Smiley (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).
Argument: Miller v. Alabama reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court's recognition that children are categorically less culpable than adults. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence that children are different than adults in constitutionally relevant ways is not limited to a specific crime or sentence. Because of adolescents' reduced culpability, Missouri's armed criminal action statute cannot be mechanically applied to juvenile offenders. Incarcerating juvenile offenders in adult facilities diminishes public safety and places youth at risk of severe harm.
Brief of amicus curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendant-appellant.
Argument: The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that this case be remanded for individualized consideration of the ‘distinctive attributes of youth.’ The Supreme Court has held that children are constitutionally different from adults and cannot be sentenced to life without parole unless age is taken into account. The principles of Miller apply equally whether the LWOP sentence is mandated or imposed as a matter of discretion. Miller and the Supreme Court’s individualized sentencing cases require that the trial court actually consider and address the defendant’s youth. The record does not demonstrate that Eric Long’s age and attendant circumstances were considered in making the decision to sentence him to life without parole. This Court should, pursuant to Article I, Section 9 of the Ohio Constitution, declare a life without parole sentence unconstitutional for any juvenile offender.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae on Behalf of Petitioners (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).
Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller applies retroactively.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as Amici Curiae on Behalf of Appellee (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).
Argument: Massachusetts’s mandatory life without parole sentencing scheme for juveniles convicted of first degree murder is unconstitutional under the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Marquise Brown should be sentenced based on the most severe lesser included offense of manslaughter. Mandatory life with parole sentences contravene Miller and Graham.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al.as amici curiae on Behalf of Appellant (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).
Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are fundamentally different from adults and categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. California Penal Code § 190.5(b) is unconstitutional because it presumes that life without parole is the appropriate sentence for juvenile offenders. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement of individual sentencing. California’s presumptive juvenile life without parole statute contravenes Miller’s requirement that juvenile life without parole sentences be uncommon. Absent a determination that appellant is among the ‘uncommon’ juveniles for whom a life without parole sentence is justified, his sentence must provide a meaningful opportunity for release.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Edwin Ike Mares (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).
Argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishment. Appellee’s mandatory life sentence is unconstitutional even in light of Wyoming’s post-millersentencing amendments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae in Support of Appellee Cameron Moon (full list of amici in appendix to linked brief).
Argument: U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence demonstrates that the state’s flawed reading of the Texas waiver statute is also constitutionally defective. The state’s flawed reading of Texas’s transfer statute runs afoul of constitutional requirement for an individualized judicial determination prior to trial in adult court, where youth are subject to mandatory sentencing statutes. The United States Supreme Court’s ‘kids are different’ jurisprudence is not limited to a particular type of crime, sentence or constitutional provision. Adoption of the state’s interpretation of the Texas statute would make Texas an outlier, allowing for the prosecution of youth as adults based on age and charge alone without an individualized determination of the youth’s maturity level and capacity for change and rehabilitation. Public policy and public opinion overwhelmingly oppose automatic transfer to adult court and mandatory imposition of adult sentences on youth.
Brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. as amici curiae In Support of Appellants Carp, Davis and Eliason (full list of amici in appendix to attached brief).
Argument: Miller reaffirms the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition that children are categorically less deserving of the harshest forms of punishments. Miller v. Alabama applies retroactively. Miller is retroactive because Kuntrell Jackson received the same relief on collateral review. Miller applies retroactively pursuant to Teague v. Lane. Miller is retroactive because it announces a substantive rule that categorically prohibits the imposition of mandatory life without parole on all juvenile offenders. Miller is retroactive because it involves a substantive interpretation of the Eighth Amendment that reflects the Supreme Court’s evolving understanding of child and adolescent development. Miller is a "watershed rule" under Teague. Once the Court declares a particular sentence "cruel and unusual" when imposed on a juvenile, the continued imposition of that sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Any life without parole sentences for a juvenile who did not kill or intend to kill is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. Intent to kill cannot be inferred when a juvenile is convicted of felony murder. Any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham. All juveniles convicted of murder in Michigan are entitled to individualized sentences that presumptively provide a meaningful opportunity for release.