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 15 results
Capital Cases John H. Blume, Pamela Blume Leonard November 2000 63 Principles of Developing and Presenting Mental Health Evidence in Criminal Cases Mentally disordered clients can be challenging, their crimes bizarre, their lives tragic and their illnesses difficult to convey. To address mental h
In United States v. Fell, a district judge in Vermont concluded that the federal death penalty is arbitrary and biased, but only the Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional.
Willie Herring’s case cried out for mitigation. The cry went unanswered. The 5-4 decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Herring’s case does not break new ground. It does, however, provide important reminders about the duty of capital defense attorneys to ensure that a comprehensive mitigation investigation is conducted in every case.
The Supreme Court decided Gregg more than 40 years ago, and the promise of a reliable death penalty has still not been met.
In high-profile capital cases, it is standard procedure for the defense to file a Motion to Change Venue as a result of extensive negative pretrial publicity. The assumption underlying a venue-change request is that a jury pool repeatedly exposed to negative facts about the case, or the defendant, will be unable to render a fair and impartial verdict and follow the presumption of innocence, thus being more conviction-prone and more likely to recommend the death penalty.
CAPITAL CASES: The Beginning of the End For Capital Punishment Diann Rust-Tierney April 2011 55 The shift of the debate around capital punishment is palpable. I have the sensation of watching a wrecking ball hitting a building at precisely the right angle and spot. At first, one wonders what
Mitigation Investigation
Lethal Incompetence Ty Alper
The Capital Ethnography Project Jesse Cheng
Beyond Wiggins : Tipping Points And Evolving Standards
Capital Cases-- Dimensions of Mitigation Russell Stetler, Kathleen Wayland
Lethal injection and the Georgia Supreme Court's new millennium Mike Mears
Capital Cases John H. Blume, Pamela Blume Leonard May 2002 58 Authors' Note: This article is meant to supplement two previous articles, The Elements of a Competent and Reliable Mental Health Examination, 1 which describes the process for acquiring an accurate assessment of a client's mental condi
Capital Cases Wanda D. Foglia, Nathan M. Schenker July 2001 26 Arbitrary and Capricious After All These Years: Constitutional Problems With Capital Jurors' Decision Making These days the public is starting to have doubts about the death penalty. It is no longer just defense attorneys who suspect
Capital Cases Richard S. Jaffe January/February 2001 35 Â Ten Principles for Individualized Voir Dire on the Death Penalty Mrs. Hunter was called to serve for jury duty, but asked to be excused because she didn't believe in capital punishment and didn't want her personal thoughts to prevent the