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 justice 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 justice system.
NACDL envisions a society where all individuals receive fair, rational, and humane treatment within the criminal justice system.
NACDL’s mission is to serve as a leader, alongside diverse coalitions, in identifying and reforming flaws and inequities in the criminal justice 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 143 results
The attorney-client privilege is fundamental to fairness and balance in our justice system and essential to corporate compliance regimes. Government-coerced waiver has become a multi-agency problem that requires a multi-agency solution. A Presidential Executive Order applying reforms like those adopted by the Department of Justice in the 2008 Filip Memo or comprehensive legislation like the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act described below would protect the attorney-client and work product privileges, as well as employee constitutional rights, during investigations.
Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-AR) introduced the Grand Jury Due Process Act (S. 2030) in May 1998. This legislation would have provided a right to assistance of counsel in the grand jury room. In July 1998, Bumpers introduced a more comprehensive reform bill called the Grand Jury Reform Act (S. 2289). In addition to providing a right to counsel's presence, this legislation would have required that grand jurors receive basic legal instructions, that prosecutors present any substantial evidence of innocence, and that defendants receive transcripts of certain grand jury testimony against them.
"Help! I've Been Subpoenaed! What Do I Do?" By Earle F. Kyle IV and Gerald B. Lefcourt, ACCA Docket October 2002
NACDL President Lisa Wayne's comments to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy regarding a proposed rule that would allow states to limit federal review of capital post-conviction cases.
Comments to the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs regarding proposed regulations in capital cases to address competent and well-funded counsel, post-conviction review, wrongful conviction, and racial disparity issues.
The Intersection of Race and Poverty: Challenging Debtors' Prisons presented by Nusrat Choudhury, Deputy Director, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Race Matters I: The Impact of Race on Criminal Justice September 14-15, 2017 | Detroit, MI
Bond: Practice presented by Colette Tvedt, criminal defense attorney, Denver, CO
Bond: Policy presented by Brandon Buskey, Deputy Director for Smart Justice Litigation, Criminal Law Reform Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Coalition letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the effective assistance of counsel for those charged with misdemeanor offenses.
Native American Justice Committee chair Tova Indritz's statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security regarding the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2009 (H.R. 1924).
Native American Justice Committee chair Tova Indritz's letter to members of the Senate regarding The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2008 (S. 3320).
Supreme Court Declines to Require the Appointment Of Counsel for Civil Litigants Facing Incarceration
People often express their displeasure when a defense attorney represents an unpopular defendant. These people need to be reminded about the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.
When the Supreme Court decided Gideon v. Wainwright, for most persons accused of serious crimes the notion of fairness was redefined. No longer was the Sixth Amendment right to counsel available only for those with the means to afford it; it was there for everyone charged with a felony. Gideon, however, remains a promise unfulfilled because while the Court compelled the states to provide counsel, it did not prescribe nor describe a mechanism to pay for it.
The “Miranda warnings” have pervaded American popular culture, but the predecessor case, Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), is often overlooked or given scant attention. This year marks the 50th anniversary of that groundbreaking precursor. While Miranda v. Arizona is among the U.S. Supreme Court’s most significant criminal justice decisions, without Escobedo, the Court may never have reached that juncture. Peter Fenton and Michael Shapiro re-examine this case, which they call one of the most important “stepping stone” cases in history.
