Webinar on recantation evidence and its uses for innocence claims.

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

With one suggestion for improvement, NACDL supports the proposed amendments to Fed.R.App.P. 35 and 40, which would consolidate and clarify the procedures governing petitions for panel or en banc rehearing, as well as petitions for initial en banc consideration.

Appellate cases can be lost before they begin when attorneys fail to follow the unique and sometimes complex procedural rules and the impact of a case decision can rise and fall on the identification and framing of the issues. This webinar focuses on understanding the arc of an appeal from case assignment to conclusion to help attorneys avoid some of the major procedural pitfalls and provides practical advice on navigating the appellate process.

This webinar focuses on the unique ethical challenges appellate attorneys encounter in their attorney-client relationships. Topics include the nature and scope of the client’s role and rights regarding the decision to appeal and the issues to be raised in the appeal, the attorney-client relationship when an attorney is pursuing an Anders brief, responsibilities when ending appellate representation, and overall communications with the client during the appellate process.

Taking the determined set of issues as its jumping off point, this webinar provides insight on how to draft a compelling brief, which includes source citation, more on issue drafting, as well as drafting the statement of the case and the argument and making the most of oral argument.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation Of Texas, Inc., the Cato Institute and the Rutherford Institute As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner.

Argument: NACDL’s amicus brief argues that the Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule would require § 1983 plaintiffs to initiate parallel federal litigation, contrary to principles of judicial economy, federalism, comity, and constitutional avoidance. Federal courts generally would stay a parallel § 1983 action under Pullman. Federal courts also may stay a parallel § 1983 action for declaratory relief. If federal courts do not stay a parallel § 1983 action, they risk making constitutional decisions unnecessarily or based on erroneous interpretations of state law. The Fifth and Seventh Circuits’ rule is unworkable and has no discernible benefit, despite its significant costs.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Arkansas Civil Liberties Foundation as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Courts of appeals that have rejected petitioner's view of Section 2255(e) have held that relief under Section 2241 is available only if an incarcerated individual shows that Section 2255's remedy "was" inadequate or ineffective at the time of the individual's "first § 2255 motion." Pet. App. 7a (emphasis [*8] added); see also McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076, 1081 (11th Cir. 2017) ("The petitioner bears the burden of establishing that the remedy by motion was 'inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention.'") (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted); Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 594 (10th Cir. 2011) (similar). In other words, these courts have focused on the adequacy or efficacy of the remedy under Section 2255 in the past. This reasoning departs from the plain text of that statute. The relevant text of Section 2255(e) focuses on the present. It allows federal prisoners to seek habeas relief under Section 2241 when the remedy provided by Section 2255 " is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of [their] detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (emphasis added). Put another way, this saving clause asks whether Section 2255's remedy is currently inadequate or ineffective, not whether it was inadequate or ineffective.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Families Against Mandatory Minimums Announce NACDL/FAMM State Clemency Project -- Washington, DC (Aug. 21, 2017) – The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), with support from the Foundation for Criminal Justice (FCJ), announce today a major state-focused clemency initiative, the NACDL/FAMM State Clemency Project, a program designed to help to recruit, train, and provide resource support to pro bono attorneys...

NACDL supports federal and state legislation to ensure defense access to CODIS for purposes of preparing a defense or petitioning for post-conviction relief or executive clemency.

The Board of Directors adopted recommended conditions on the use of familial DNA searches.

NACDL opposes the use of familial DNA searching

Innocent people are convicted of crimes and spend years in prison while the real offender remains free.  Although it is exceedingly difficult to overcome a conviction, even for an innocent individual, convictions are being overturned and individuals are being exonerated with increasing frequency.  According to the Innocence Project, over 300 individuals have been exonerated based on DNA evidence, while thousands of other individuals have been exonerated without DNA evidence.