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 - 15 of 30 results
Comments to the Judicial Conference of the United States Practice & Procedure Committee regarding proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Evidence 106, 615, and 702.
NACDL lists experts referred by its members, and an expert was in your search.
Comments to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding proposed amendments to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The authors provide attorneys with guidance when selecting and consulting forensic mental health experts.
With increasing frequency since the 1970s, psychologists have been admitted as expert witnesses to educate factfinders about the many facets of eyewitness memory. The authors provide an overview of three distinct topics about which eyewitness experts typically testify: eyewitness identification, repressed memory, and child witnesses.
Brief Of Amici Curiae The Tennessee Innocence Project, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: Investigation of the prosecution’s scientific or technical evidence on critical facts essential to the defense is a necessary part of rendering constitutionally adequate counsel. Counsel’s investigation of forensic sciences and techniques related to a fact essential to a defense is critical because of the powerful impact expert testimony has at trial. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science’s report on the forensic science community highlights the shortcomings of the field as well as the powerful impact that faulty forensic science can have on those accused of a crime. Extensive research has shown a positive correlation between faulty forensic science testimony and the wrongful conviction of those accused of a crime. The United States Supreme Court’s analysis of defense counsel’s responsibilities to investigate and obtain expert assistance in Hinton v. Alabama directly applies to this case. Trial counsel’s failure to introduce Inspector Miller’s statements through the excited-utterance exception is the kind of unforced error that the Supreme Court recognizes as constitutionally inadequate.
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.
This month Matthew T. Mangino reviews The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist: A True Story of Injustice in the American South by Radley Balko and Tucker Carrington.
The broad issue here is differential diagnosis v. differential etiology. Basically, doctors should not testify as to how an injury occurred. Their expertise is limited to and so should their testimony be limited to diagnosing the injury. The opinion is very well written and provides a pretty good road map of how the lawyers attached the testimony. It has broad implications. Both the opinion and the filings are attached.
When contesting a confession as false, it behooves the defense lawyer to understand the psychological principles that got the defendant into his predicament. The authors provide an overview of three different expert witnesses that may be able to assist the defense: false confession experts, clinical forensic experts, and polygraph experts.
Race Data Matters: Using Expert Testimony and Social Science Data about Discriminatory Policing to Win Pretrial Motions: Part II presented by Alison Siegler, Clinical Law Professor, University of Chicago Law School
Race Matters I: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice September 14-15, 2017 | Detroit, MI