With one suggestion for improvement, NACDL supports the proposed amendments to Fed.R.App.P. 35 and 40, which would consolidate and clarify the procedures governing petitions for panel or en banc rehearing, as well as petitions for initial en banc consideration.

President Lisa Wayne's written statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding sentencing practices since the U.S. v. Booker decision.

NACDL advocated for the passage of legislation to streamline the assignment of appellate counsel for indigent defendants appealing their convictions.

NACDL President Chris Adams' letter to the New York state legislature regarding proposals to truly implement review of excessive sentences, suppression rulings, and streamlining the assignment of counsel in appeals as outlined in A5687/S1280, A5688/S1281, and A5689/S1279, respectively (2021).

Comments to the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed amendments to Rule 3(c) and 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Comments to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed amendments to Rule 28 and Form 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

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

Comments to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs regarding proposed regulations in capital cases to address competent and well-funded counsel, post-conviction review, wrongful conviction, and racial disparity issues.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Office of the Ohio Public Defender [and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers] in Support of Appellant, David C. Kinney, Jr.

Argument: The prohibition in R.C. 2953.08(D)(3)--which is entirely unique to Ohio--is most accurately understood as a legislative oversight with severe unintended consequences. But even if not, it is unconstitutional on both cruel-and-unusual-punishment and equal-protection grounds. Amici Curiae urge this Court to provide meaningful appellate review of sentences for aggravated murder in Ohio.

When the United States Loses in a Criminal Case: The Appeal Process.

Brief of the New York Council of Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner-Appellee and Affirmance.

Argument: Appellate courts have applied the abuse-of-discretion standard of review when reviewing sentencing and post-sentencing proceedings. This Court should apply the abuse of discretion standard with appropriate deference.

Brief of Aleph Institute

Argument: Circuits’ disparate approaches to reasonableness review undermine the benefits of appellate review of sentences. The goal of the sentencing reform act commend review of the statutory maximum sentence imposed in this case.