NACDL President Lawrence Goldman's letter to House Judiciary Committee chair Representative Jim Sensenbrenner regarding the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (H.R. 912).

NACDL supports abolition of the death penalty in Nevada and all other states that continue to utilize it.

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

With a new administration taking office and congressional calls for abolition, society will again ask itself whether there is a place for the death penalty consistent with our values. There is not.

Does the death penalty serve as a deterrent for crime? The research says no. Leading criminologists overwhelmingly agree that there is no evidence capital punishment deters violent crimes. Not only is the death penalty unjust and inconsistent with the fallibility of our criminal legal system, but application of the death penalty is racially biased.

Reports and other resources related to the death penalty.

Public sentiment continues to turn in favor of abolishing the death penalty. The death penalty remains a national embarrassment. It is racist, classist, and anachronistic.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant and Reversal.

Argument: The Sixth Amendment requires trial counsel to investigate mitigating factors in a death penalty case. The duty to investigate mitigating factors extends to investigating evidence of trauma and abuse. The duty to investigate abuse and trauma was well established when Terry was sentenced to death in 1997. The duty to ensure a constitutionally adequate social history investigation lies squarely with trial counsel. Trial counsel does not fulfill their Sixth Amendment obligations merely by hiring experts. Trial counsel is required to actively oversee the mitigation investigation. The decision below departs from that precedent. The district court erred in finding that trial counsel conducted an adequate investigation. The district court erred in attributing trial counsel’s errors to Terry’s experts. 

Brief of Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Order.

Argument: Investigations by telephone, rather than in-person, deprive Brown of effective assistance of counsel. Defense counsel’s ability in a death penalty case to effectively represent the client is derived from “the overarching duty to advocate the defendant’s cause.” This duty is even more critical in capital cases, since “‘the penalty of death is qualitatively different’ from any other sentence.” As such, capital cases require a “greater degree of reliability when the death sentence is imposed.” However, reliability is only attainable when defense counsel is able to adequately investigate and prepare, which is fundamental to attorney competence. Inhibiting defense counsel’s ability to investigate renders counsel ineffective and harms the client. In fact, several courts have found defense counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to conduct an in-person investigation. The Magistrate’s Order asks counsel to ignore ethical obligations under standards governing capital cases. A mitigation investigation in a capital case must not deviate from the American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Council in Death Penalty Cases and the Supplementary Guidelines for the Mitigation Function of Defense Teams in Death Penalty Cases. Capital life sentence investigations must be conducted according to well-established best practices. The ABA Guidelines, the Supplementary Guidelines, and Texas Guidelines articulate the national and state standards regarding the investigation obligations of defense teams in such cases.

Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force reflecting NACDL's policy on sex offender registries and other practices as adopted by the Board of Directors.

Report of the Sex Offender Policy Task Force reflecting NACDL's policy on sex offender registries and other practices as adopted by the Board of Directors.

“The death penalty is not about whether people deserve to die for the crimes they commit. The real question of capital punishment in this country is, Do we deserve to kill?"

― Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption

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] 

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