NACDL frequently writes to members of Congress, the Department of Justice, and the president on fourth amendment issues. These letters have been collected and are available for download by clicking on the titles below.

UNITED STATES’ OPPOSITION CR-12-0030 EMC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612) United States Attorney J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN 412811) Chief, Criminal Division S. WAQAR HASIB (CABN 234818) ALEXANDRA P. SUMMER (CABN 266485) Assistant United States Attorneys

NACDL undersigned a letter on July 8, 2013 to Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Michael E. Horowitz to ask that the Department of Justice make public any findings by the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) regarding the collection of Americans’ telephone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

NACDL endorses model legislation to promote nationwide discovery reform and improve the fairness of criminal justice systems.

NACDL comments on S.B. No. 653, an act concerning open-file disclosure in criminal cases.

Joint letter from NACDL and VACDL to the Supreme Court of Virginia regarding the Court's decision to delay the effective date of the new criminal discovery rules until July 1, 2020.

Comments with FAMM to Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco regarding U.S. Attorney offices requiring waiver of the right to seek compassionate release during plea negotiations.

The integrity of the criminal justice system relies on the guarantees made to the actors operating within it. For the accused, the guarantee of fair process includes not only the right to put on a defense, but to put on a complete defense. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this guarantee over 50 years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, when it declared that failure to disclose favorable information violates the constitution when that information is material. This guarantee, however, is frequently unmet. [Released November 2014]

Discovery rules that leave defendants in the dark about the evidence against them undermine fairness and due process and increase the risk of wrongful convictions. Criminal discovery can be divided into two categories: (1) disclosure of so-called “exculpatory evidence” that is constitutionally required under the Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady opinion and (2) disclosure that is required by statute or court rule. There is great variation among jurisdictions regarding the amount of discovery required by statute/rule and even the Brady decision.

Collects discovery reform proposals and model laws from various organizations

How can a defense attorney minimize the potentially long-lasting impact of burdensome pretrial release conditions? How can the defense attorney engage in meaningful review, especially when the assistant U.S. attorney refuses to produce an exhibit list?

NACDL comments on proposed revisions to Rules 3A:11 and 3A:12 proposed by the Virginia State Bar’s Criminal Discovery Reform Task Force.

NACDL comments to the Virginia Supreme Court on proposed revisions to Virginia's discovery rules: Proposed Revisions to Rules 3A:11 and 3A:12 Received from the Virginia State Bar Criminal Discovery Reform Task Force.

An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei