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] 

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.

Whatever Happened to Willie Horton? Edward A. Mallett October 2000 7 When George W.'s father beat Michael Dukakis in 1988 he got great mileage out of the proposition that a violent crime by a Massachusetts parolee demonstrated the Democratic Party's incompetence. His anti-crime demagoguery connected

Letter to the Nevada state Assembly Judiciary Committee regarding a proposal to abolish the death penalty statewide, as addressed in AB 395 (2021).

This week, we explore the 1989 execution of Carlos DeLuna by the State of Texas.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Alabama in support of petitioner. Issue: Whether there was no “cause” to excuse a missed filing deadline in a habeas case where the petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his attorneys at the time of the default.

Argument: Brief argues, inter alia, that Alabama’s death penalty system is inadequate at every state in the process: Inexperienced, underpaid and ineffectual lawyers are appointed at trial and on direct appeal; racial disparities exist in the application of the death penalty; and politics encourages judges to override a jury’s sentencing recommendation of life imprisonment and impose the death penalty. 

NACDL amicus curiae brief in support of respondent.

Argument: Respondent Jeffrey Landrigan told the trial court that he did not want his attorney to present any mitigation evidence. On post-conviction review, the state court held as frivolous his ineffective assistance claim in which he asserted that if his lawyer had raised the issue of his alleged genetic predisposition to violence, he would have cooperated in presenting that evidence in mitigation of death; on federal habeas review, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously held that the state court made an "unreasonable determination" of the facts when it found that Landrigan instructed his attorney not to present mitigation evidence at the sentencing hearing. Argument: A knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the right to present mitigation evidence can only occur if the defendant has received the advice of his counsel, based on counsel’s reasonable investigation.