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 - 1 of 1 results
Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Interested Party-Appellant and Reversal of the District Court Decision.
Argument: The Nixon test does not apply to Rule 17(c) subpoenas to third parties. The District Court sanctioned Ms. Migdal for issuing Rule 17(c) subpoenas to third parties. The Nixon test applies only to subpoenas issued to the prosecution. Rule 17(c) subpoenas by defendants to third-parties are proper where they are 91) reasonable, and (2) not unduly oppressive. The Bowman/Nixon rationale for limiting the scope of Rule 17(c) does not apply to Third-party subpoenas. A less stringent standard than the Nixon test comports with criminal discovery principles. At a minimum, the case law supporting Ms. Migdal’s interpretation confirms that her conduct was not sanctionable.
