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 - 15 of 502 results
Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chairs E.E. (Bo) Edwards, David B. Smith, and Richard Troberman's written statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.
Coalition letter to leaders of the House Financial Services Subcommittees on Terrorism and Illicit Finance and Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit regarding proposals to expand and add penalties for information sharing and paperwork violations by banking and financial services institutions, as outlined in the discussion draft of Counter Terrorism and Illicit Finance Act (to become H.R. 6068, 2018).
Coalition letter to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies and House leadership regarding proposed amendments to the 2018 appropriations bill that would limit civil forfeiture expansion and protect property rights for those not charged or convicted of a crime (see H.R. 3354 (2017)).
Letter to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee regarding proposed changes to beneficial ownership rules and penalties for violations, as addressed in the Corporate Transparency Act of 2017 (S. 1717).
Letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding proposed changes to beneficial ownership rules and penalties for violations, as addressed in the True Incorporation Transparency for Law Enforcement (TITLE) Act (S. 1454, 2017).
Letter to the House Financial Services Committee regarding proposed changes to beneficial ownership rules and penalties for violations, as addressed in the Corporate Transparency Act of 2017 (H.R. 3089, 2017).
Coalition letter to members of the House regarding proposed amendments to the 2018 appropriations bill that would limit civil forfeiture expansion and protect property rights for those not charged or convicted of a crime (see H.R. 3354 (2017)).
Coalition letter to House and Senate leadership and Congressional leadership regarding the overreach of federal civil forfeiture and its use before people are convicted of any offense, undermining the presumption of innocence.
The U.S. Supreme Court saved 18 U.S.C. § 1346 and the honest-services doctrine from the void-for-vagueness dust heap in Skilling v. United States. Jonathan Jeffress and William Zapf explore certain “limiting principles” courts have followed that may be avenues for challenging an honest-services prosecution. In addition, they include a brief survey detailing how circuit court pattern jury instructions cover honest-services fraud.
Asset forfeiture – also called “policing for profit” – has come under scrutiny from courts and legislatures. Elliot Abrams provides defense lawyers with recent updates to forfeiture law, primarily focusing on pretrial seizure and attorney’s fees. Courts are taking a hard look at forfeiture and pretrial seizures, and lawyers should continue bringing statutory challenges to actions that appear to violate statutory language or a defendant’s fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court in Sineneng-Smith did not directly rule against the argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad. But it is possible that this statute may be challenged in the future.
Few areas in the white collar world are in as much upheaval as law and practice under the federal honest services statute, but public corruption investigations continue at a quick pace. The authors provide practical suggestions about how to shape and present a defense – from a theory of the case and in limine motions to jury instructions and post-trial advocacy.
A law passed in 2020 requires small businesses to file a report listing their beneficial owners to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) at a date to be determined after FinCEN has issued implementing regulations. The law does not apply to companies that have more than 20 employees or have more than $5 million in annual gross receipts.
Kyle O'Dowd, Shana-Tara Regon and Michael Price, Notes from the Defense Bar: Fighting for Reform on Three Fronts During the Obama Administration, Federal Sentencing Reporter (December 2010).
