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 20 results
On cross-examination, how can a defense attorney use a number as an organizational framework for an important group of related facts?
When a witness gives an evasive answer, how can defense counsel put the witness back on track?
Sometimes a prosecution witness did part of his or her job well, and as a result, the evidence found assists the defense team. Defense counsel can flip the script by causing a prosecution witness to vouch for evidence that favors the client.
What is constructive cross-examination? What are the components of constructive cross-examination chapters? Larry Pozner explains.
Some lawyers refuse to write their cross-examinations because they believe written crosses will stifle their creativity. Larry Pozner disagrees. “We win most of our cases through crosses we planned, not crosses we lucked into,” he says. “And a scripted chapter frees our mind to listen more closely to the answers and judge when an answer has provided a launching pad for additional areas of cross.” Pozner has yet to hear a valid reason chapters of cross should not be written.
What are negative questions? How can they cause confusion?
A witness seeking to evade will often answer with more than “I don’t know” because “I don’t know” implies “I am a bad witness.” Instead, the witness will often try to duck by inserting a reason he or she is not responsible for knowing the answers in that area.
How can defense counsel impeach witnesses when they exhibit behavior that is inconsistent with their stories?
“But” is a word that portends disappointment in some aspect of the prosecution’s case, and disappointment can lead to reasonable doubt.
Asymmetrical cross-examination uses chapters that do not perfectly align with the opponent’s chapters of direct examination.
Larry Pozner says he recently performed a cross-examination that he rates as meh. He describes it as “decent but lacking punch.” Pozner dissects the cross-examination and shares six lessons that he learned.
Larry Pozner explains how to create a multiple-witness comparison chart.
When a witness gives multiple statements, defense lawyers need a preparation system that efficiently detects many forms of inconsistency.
Larry Pozner offers tips on cross-examining an expert on the expert’s failure to comply with a subpoena seeking documents.
When “wheeling” the factual assertion as a destructive cross-examination technique, the defense attorney’s goal is to undermine belief in the “hub” fact. The hub fact is testimony that lacks credibility. Defense counsel then causes the witness to discuss “spoke” facts that are logically inconsistent with the hub fact.
