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 justice 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 justice system.
NACDL envisions a society where all individuals receive fair, rational, and humane treatment within the criminal justice system.
NACDL’s mission is to serve as a leader, alongside diverse coalitions, in identifying and reforming flaws and inequities in the criminal justice 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 752 results
"Turning the Tables on the Government" LOCATION: Fairmont Miramar Hotel & Bungalows, Santa Monica, CA DATES: June 17-19, 2020
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).
Argument: In this case, the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed that a person violates the CFAA by using a computer to access information for an improper purpose, even if that person is otherwise authorized to access that information. This holding warrants review because it reinforces a conflict of authority regarding the meaning of “authorized access” under the CFAA and because the Eleventh Circuit was wrong on the merits. Review also is warranted because the question presented is important. Computers are ubiquitous in daily life. It is important that the Court clarify that ordinary deviances from terms-of-use requirements— whether imposed by internet websites or private company use guidelines, to name but a few—are not criminal. Review also is necessary because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from settled practices for construing federal criminal statutes. Because the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and those courts on its side of the open and acknowledged split of authority break from this approach at every level, this Court should grant review.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).
Argument: Law enforcement officers testifying on matters based on their professional experience or training should be treated as expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, rather than Rule 701. Law enforcement officers have scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. There is an intractable Circuit split on this issue and the Supreme Court should grant certiorari. The question presented arises in a wide variety of cases. Permitting law enforcement officers to furnish lay opinion testimony leads to unfair applications, including law enforcement officers being allowed to offer opinions no other lay witness would be permitted to give.
Letter to members of the Judicial Conference regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.
Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent.
Argument: 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)’s criminalization of a person who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact” that it would be in violation of the law is unduly broad under the First Amendment. The prohibition also violates the void-for-vagueness doctrine under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. “Encouragement” and “Inducement” are indefinite terms and depend on subjective determinations. This provides insufficient notice to the public and invites arbitrary and selective enforcement. The statute’s failure to specify a mens rea for “encourages or induces” exacerbates this problem. The statute would also chill First Amendment-protected speech.
Testimony of member Kent Wicker to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines.
Statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to sentencing guidelines.
Letter to the U.S. Courts Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
Follow-up letter to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
Letter to the Securities Exchange Commission regarding proposed whistleblower provisions to the Securities Exchange Act.
Comments to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines.
Letter to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding proposed amendments to the sentencing guidelines.
