from Capital Sentencing and the Graham-Miller Resentencing to Sentencing in all Cases

Keynote speakers from the 2020 Presidential Summit and Sentencing Symposium, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Law Center American Criminal Law Review

Preparing Your Client & Yourself for the Good, Bad, and Unfathomable with Richard S. Jaffe and Special Guest, Randal Padgett, Death Row Exoneree [Engage & Exchange Series] 

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

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is currently accepting proposals from individuals to serve as an independent contractor for various projects related to NACDL's Capital Case Litigation Initiative (CCLI).

NACDL encourages counsel not to abdicate their responsibility to provide effective representation to their clients and to continue to make a full record of work that cannot be achieved during the pandemic. NACDL supports its members and others who adhere to fundamental capital practice standards during this pandemic and refuse to undertake substandard in-person work.

The role of the grand jury in capital prosecutions Thomas K. Maher, Christopher Fialko

Death Row Defense Edward A. Mallett President's Column August/September 2000 7 sara

NACDL President Lisa Wayne's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.

NACDL President Jim Lavine's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellee.

Argument: The Davidson County Criminal Court had jurisdiction to evaluate Mr. Abdur’Rahman’s motion to re-open his post-conviction petition, which gave it the inherent power to preside over a settlement of his post-conviction case. Due Process, principles of contract law, and economic efficiency require Mr. Abdur’Rahman’s settlement agreement to be specifically enforced. Under agency law principles, the District Attorney General had the actual and apparent authority to settle Mr. Abdur’Rahman’s post-conviction case. District Attorneys General, duly elected by the public in their district, are in a superior position to broker settlements in post-conviction capital cases. Troubling equal protection issues are raised in a system where the State Attorney General can appeal some post-conviction settlements but allow others to stand.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of petitioner.

Argument: The verbatim adoption of proposed orders is typical in Alabama capital postconviction cases and produces serious flaws in the resulting orders. The Eleventh Circuit erred in accepting as reasonable erroneous factual determinations in the trial court’s orders that were adopted verbatim from the proposed orders drafted by state prosecutors.

Amicus curiae brief of the Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant.

Argument: Due to the potent nature of confession evidence, the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s verdict, even though it was not admitted at trial. Standard police interrogation tactics have been shown to induce false confessions, particularly in juveniles and the mentally impaired. Even while the Misskelley confession strongly influenced the jury’s decision to convict, it bears all the hallmarks of a false confession.

Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner-Appellant's Petition for Rehearing En Banc.

Argument: The panel's ruling conflicts with decisions of the First, Second, and Fifth Circuits. The notice of appeal became timely on September 30, 2005, when it was transmitted to this court. Because the district court violated FRAP 3(d) by failing promptly to forward Washington's notice of appeal, the appeal should not have been dismissed. The panel's bar on use of a rule 60(B) motion to render a notice of appeal timely conflicts with the Sixth Circuit and Mackey. The panel opinion conflicts with this court's decision in Mackey and the Supreme Court's decision in Hill. The panel opinion conflicts with Sixth Circuit precedent. The panel did not follow a "majority rule." The panel's "identical grounds" rule is unsound and would not apply to Washington. The panel's refusal to permit 60(b) relief conflicts with the language and purpose of the federal rules.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (cert. stage).

Argument: The Court should grant the writ to protect the Sixth Amendment right to an unbiased jury. The critical question is whether a trial court must, at a minimum, ask potential jurors who admit exposure to highly prejudiced pretrial publicity if they have formed opinions about guilt and allow further questioning to uncover bias. The Alabama Supreme Court said no, holding that courts may rely on those jurors' collective, untested assurance that they can be fair. That ruling conflicts with decisions of this Court and must be corrected.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: The circuit split makes Rule 60(b)'s safety valve of relief from judgment in "extraordinary" cases available only to prisoners in certain circuits. Deciding whether Martinez and Trevino can ever for part of the basis for "extraordinary circumstances" justifying Rule 60(b) relief is particularly important in capital cases. Gonzalez held that intervening supreme court decisions are not sufficient for Rule 60(b) relief, but did not hold such decisions could not form part of the basis for such relief.