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 for Amicus Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner (on petition for a writ of certiorari).
Argument: Jacobson remands have eviscerated the Second Circuit’s review of sentencing procedure. The Jacobson procedure violates the sentencing laws and conflicts with otherwise-uniform nationwide practices. Jacobson remands are an entrenched and pernicious feature of Second Circuit criminal practice. The Second Circuit’s established standard for reviewing substantive reasonableness violates this Court’s precedent. The Second Circuit has employed the “shocks the conscience” standard for nearly a decade. The “shocks the conscience” standard is incompatible with substantive reasonableness review. The Second Circuit’s errors undermine federal sentencing law’s most important goals.