NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually
First Steps for State Sentencing Reform

NACDL worked with the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to eliminate sentencing enhancements.

NACDL is working with partners to end habitual offender sentencing enhancements in New Mexico.

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding legislation to address the judicial discretion that allows for factoring into sentencing conduct acquitted by a jury, as proposed in Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (H.R. 1621).

An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei

Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines.

Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing ("CAN-SPAM") Act of 2003.

Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Fair Sentencing Act.

Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding the economic crime package and other proposed amendments.

Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission on proposed 1997 Emergency Amendments.

Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed 1997 Amendments.

Letter from Rick Jones (Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem Executive Director), Alex Bunin (Harris County, TX, Public Defender), Lisa Schreibersdorf (Brooklyn Defender Services Executive Director), and Jeff Adachi (San Francisco Public Defender) to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees regarding proposed sentencing reforms that adjust how enhancements are determined, as addressed in Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (S. 2123) and Sentencing Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 3713).

Coalition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding legislation to address the judicial discretion that allows for factoring into sentencing conduct acquitted by a jury, as proposed in Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S. 601).

Coalition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding a renewed proposal to ban judges from determining sentences influenced by conduct acquitted by a jury, as addressed in the Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (S. 601).

Brief of Amici Curiae Due Process institute, Cato Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Rutherford Institute, District of Columbia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and Law Professors in Support Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

Argument: The standard-of-review question this case presents implicates profound concerns with federal sentencing--concerns with substantial constitutional implications. Federal courts routinely sentence defendants to years in prison based on hearsay statements relayed to the court at sentencing by law enforcement officers. Those statements often come from convicted criminals who want to reduce their sentences by cooperating with the government. The cooperating criminals do not appear in court, so the district judge has no opportunity to assess their demeanor. They do not swear an oath to tell the truth. They do not face cross-examination. And their out-of-court statements need only persuade the judge by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner Beltran Leyva faces a life sentence based on precisely such evidence. Defendants have few safeguards against sentencing enhancements that rest on false out-of-court statements from cooperating criminals. One such protection is searching appellate review. De novo review by the court of appeals ensures that the reliability of the cooperator's statement will receive a second level of careful scrutiny. And de novo review comports with the rationale for heightened appellate scrutiny: the stakes--a person's right to due process of law before losing his liberty--are high, and, because the district court never observes the cooperator's demeanor, the appellate court is just as capable of evaluating his credibility.