Until recently, the effectiveness of Virginia’s pretrial system in achieving its goals of public safety, protection of individual freedoms, and efficient and just court proceedings has been hard to ascertain, due in part to the lack of available systematic data. New data released as part of the Virginia Pretrial Data Project (PDP) now provide opportunities to more closely examine the pretrial system in much richer detail and with more rigorous statistical methods than have previously been available. [Released Jul 2024]

This Litigation Manual was developed by NACDL’s Criminalization of Reproductive Health Task Force to serve as a comprehensive resource to effectively litigate abortion cases. As the nation’s preeminent criminal defense bar, we are deeply committed to ensuring that the defense community is fully equipped to represent all accused persons at the highest level. This resource is restricted to defense attorneys. It is not to be used by those employed by prosecution or law enforcement organizations or otherwise involved in the prosecution of criminal cases or law enforcement. [Released Nov. 2023]

This Report outlines current legal statutes that criminalize abortion and the impact overturning Roe v. Wade would have on laws to prosecute and incarcerate those providing, receiving, or assisting with abortions. It details the risk that, without protections provided by Roe v. Wade, many states can and will continue to pass laws that further inflame the national crisis of overcriminalization and mass incarceration. [Released August 2021]

2018 update on prisoner recidivism of those convicted of marijuana-related offenses: a 9-year follow-up period (2005-2014).

Handwriting and/or signature samples (exemplars) described. Academic journal article. 

Hidden in Plain Sight — Reconsidering the Use of Race Correction in Clinical Algorithms (bond & the criminal legal system is used as an example). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110 (2019). By Bess Stiffelman. Academic journal article in Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law. Defense perspective on DNA and Probabilistic Genotyping. Argument that it is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence

This is a brief response to the critique of Bess Stiffelman's previous article, No Longer the Gold Standard: Probabilistic Genotyping is Changing the Nature of DNA Evidence in Criminal Trials, 24 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 110 (2019). The critique of her article was published earlier this year in this journal. I address both criticisms and misunderstandings of her arguments in an effort to frame the concerns of the criminal defense community about the impact of probabilistic genotyping on the deliberative process.

U.S. Sentencing Commission Overview of the First Step Act.

A paper in the University of Chicago Law Review on cases of false confessions and potential solutions.

A paper by Wisconsin Public State Defender Deja Vishny detailing the potential reasons why innocent people give false confessions during trial. 

A report detailing the issues of bias in eyewitness accounts, begins with exemplar case recounting a rape victim pointing out the perpetrator in a photospread, but choosing someone else during a live lineup. 

An article from the September 2012 issue of American Psychologist by Saul M. Kassin on the effects of false confessions on multiple aspects of a trial. 

Report on the Peer Review of the Expert Testimony in the Cases of State of Texas v. Cameron Todd Willingham and State of Texas v. Ernest Ray Willis.

"Plea Bargained vs. Open Pleas: What the Data Reveal," Westlaw Journal White Collar Crime, March 2017.