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 - 2 of 2 results
Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: Taylor's categorical approach applies to all ACCA predicates. A prior conviction that lacks a mens rea element cannot constitute a "serious drug offense." ACCA's legislative history affirms that state drug convictions lacking a mens rea requirement do not qualify as "serious drug offenses." ACCA will continue to have a geographically disparate impact unless the categorical approach is applied.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari).
Argument: The Court should grant certiorari to determine whether the rule of lenity applies when a court confronts a federal statutory provision that has both civil and criminal applications and that an agency has interpreted. Section 1101 (a)(43) has extensive criminal applications, with substantial penal consequences. This Court should grant certiorari to reaffirm the important principle that the rule of lenity applies when courts interpret ambiguous statutory provisions like section 1101(a)(43) that carry both civil and criminal applications. This case is a good vehicle for addressing the applicability of the rule of lenity in cases involving "hybrid" civil-criminal statutory provisions. Certiorari is warranted because BIA's and the Sixth Circuit's mistaken understanding of the categorical approach would entail significant practical consequences for attorneys and their clients. The BIA and the Sixth Circuit failed to define the relevant elements of the generic offense of "sexual abuse of a minor," leading to the erroneous result in this case. The misapplication of the categorical approach in this case would create major difficulties for attorneys and their clients.