NACDL has engaged in advocacy efforts to reform the discovery process in Connecticut.

Coalition letter to Governor Kathy Hochul regarding proposed changes to New York State's discovery rules. 

NACDL comments on S.B. No. 653, an act concerning open-file disclosure in criminal cases.

Joint letter from NACDL and VACDL to the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the Court's decision to delay the effective date of the new criminal discovery rules until July 1, 2020.

In this episode, we explore the ongoing, multi-year effort to bring criminal discovery reform to the Commonwealth of Virginia, an effort in which NACDL has been a leader.

NACDL comments on proposed revisions to Rules 3A:11 and 3A:12 proposed by the Virginia State Bar’s Criminal Discovery Reform Task Force.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Committee on Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules Governing 2255 Proceedings.

Letter to the Advisory Committee on Local Rules chairman regarding proposed changes to criminal disclosure rules in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Letter from current and former judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, defense attorneys, and others to members of Congress on the need for reform and clarification of federal criminal discovery obligations.

Criminal discovery can be divided into two categories: (1) disclosure of so-called “exculpatory evidence” that is constitutionally required under the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady opinion and (2) disclosure that is required by statute or court rule. Discovery allows you to build a fully-informed defense for your client. "Discover" resources for your case here.

A guide on Brady v. Maryland prepared by the Special Litigation Division of the Public Defender Services of District of Columbia. It is both a quick reference guide and a starting point for correspondence or pleading addressing the government’s Brady obligations. 

Forensic software is used in the criminal justice context to make assertions about the presence and nature of DNA, to deploy police resources to certain areas, or to guide bail and sentencing determinations. Software, however, is far from impartial or infallible. The authors explain why law and public policy require disclosure to the public and independent experts of the software source code and other software development records, including training data sets.

Many years ago I was asked to talk at an annual meeting of a statewide prosecutors’ association. They wanted me to speak from a defense perspective about common prosecutorial mistakes. Really, this was their idea. I accepted happily.

Sadly, the struggle to obtain information favorable to an accused that rests in the hands of prosecutors and their agents rages on 50 years after the Supreme Court declared in Brady v. Maryland that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution. And so the 50th anniversary of Brady, which occurred on May 13, 2013, is less a celebration than a lamentation.