Comments to the U.S. Courts Administrative Office on the consequences of allowing public access to electronic criminal case files.

NACDL President Chris Adams' letter to the New York state legislature regarding proposals to truly implement review of excessive sentences, suppression rulings, and streamlining the assignment of counsel in appeals as outlined in A5687/S1280, A5688/S1281, and A5689/S1279, respectively (2021).

Comments with FAMM to Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco regarding U.S. Attorney offices requiring waiver of the right to seek compassionate release during plea negotiations.

"Plea Bargained vs. Open Pleas: What the Data Reveal," Westlaw Journal White Collar Crime, March 2017.

Brief of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: A presumption of prejudice is appropriate because defendants often succeed on appeal despite waivers. Defendants often succeed on appeal based on issues beyond the scope of their particular waivers. Defendants often succeed on appeal even on claims within the scope of a waiver. The decisions below ignores the potential for meritorious claims even in cases involving appeal waivers. Postconviction proceedings are not an adequate substitute for direct appellate review. Claims that are not raised on direct appeal generally cannot be raised in postconviction proceedings. Higher standards apply in postconviction proceedings. There is no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers As Amicus Curiae In Support of the Petition for Rehearing by the Panel or by the En Banc Court.

Argument: The Panel erred in relieving the government of its obligation to perform. Assuming Mr. Erwin breached the plea agreement, the Panel awarded a remedy that placed the government in a better position than it would have been in but for the breach and that punished Mr. Erwin. The Panel’s approach is inappropriate as a matter of public policy.

Brief Amici Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: The Freeman concurrence leads to unpredictable results because parties rely on the Sentencing Guidelines but do not draft plea agreements with retroactive resentencing in mind. The Sentencing Guidelines are key to all pleas because prosecutors must make them central to their decisions. Defendants use their limited plea leverage to address pressing, current issues. Defendants almost universally plead guilty. Defendants who plead prioritize current issues over uncertain future eventualities like retroactive Sentencing Guidelines. Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreements differ by jurisdiction. Variations in plea agreements lead to different resentencing outcomes for similarly-situated defendants. The Freeman concurrence leads to inequitable results because eligibility for resentencing does not necessarily reflect the parties' actual intent. The Freeman concurrence leads to inconsistent results for defendants with similar plea agreements because there is confusion about the level of specificity required. Freeman should be modified to provide a clear, administrable rule. Justices have recognized the importance of clear, administrable rules rather than creating 4-1-4 split decisions. The proper rule is for all Rule 11(c)(1)(C) defendants to be resentenced when a guidelines range implicated by their plea is amended retroactively. Congress or the United States Sentencing Commission can always revise this rule if desired.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers adopted Ethics Opinion 12-02