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 - 1 of 1 results
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
Argument: The panel's decision, which equates defense counsel with amicus curiae, ignores counsel's critical role as representative and advocate. Historically, amici curiae are legal advisors unaffiliated with any party to the litigation. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel guarantees substantially more than mere access to an independent legal advisor. At common law, criminal defendants could seek legal advice but not representation. Sixth Amendment jurisprudence established an expanded role for defense counsel as "alter ego" and advocate. The panel's decision creates an unworkable system for district courts, appointed amici curiae, and appellate courts. District courts will now know until after the fact whether appointing amicus instead of counsel violates the Sixth Amendment. Counsel appointed as independent amici curiae will not know what is required of them. Appellate courts will face requests for case-by-case, after-the-fact determinations of whether amici curiae acted enough like defense counsel to satisfy the rule announced in Kowalczyk.