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 - 13 of 13 results
Public defense issues and developments in South Carolina
When a person is accused of a crime, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that person the right to a lawyer even if they cannot afford one. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this basic principle more than a half century ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, and in subsequent cases that expanded the right to misdemeanor prosecutions. Yet this right is violated every day in South Carolina’s magistrate and municipal courts – collectively referred to as summary courts – where scores of people are convicted, sentenced, and sometimes incarcerated, without having been represented by counsel. [Released April 2016]
Researchers systematically gathered data from magistrate and municipal courts in five counties. The research confirms that there is a pervasive lack of procedural justice and fairness in these courts. Far too many accused persons are not advised of basic constitutional rights, and even when they are, those rights are not respected. [Released January 2017]
NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.
When a person is accused of a crime, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that person the right to a lawyer even if he or she cannot afford one. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this basic principle more than a half century ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, and in subsequent cases that expanded the right to misdemeanor prosecutions. Yet this right is violated every day in South Carolina’s magistrate and municipal courts – collectively referred to as summary courts – where scores of people are convicted, sentenced, and sometimes incarcerated, without having been represented by counsel.
In February 2021, South Carolina passed the “Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act” (S.1, R-2, Act. No 1 of 2021) (the “Act”), but before the Act became law, it was enjoined by a federal district court, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction. On June 24, 2022, when the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health came out, South Carolina filed an emergency motion to stay the injunction. On June 27, the district court granted the motion. Thus, the Act is now in effect in South Carolina.
See the various issues on which NACDL has conducted criminal justice advocacy in South Carolina. Scroll to the bottom of the page to see active legislation in South Carolina that NACDL is tracking.
NACDL worked with state partners to advocate for expungement reform legislation in South Carolina.
Policies and rulings on lengthy imprisonment terms in South Carolina.
Information on the policy and history of recording custodial interrogations in South Carolina.
Attorney-client communications federal caselaw and state-specific anecdotal data in South Carolina
Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: Kenneth Robinson’s case is a quintessential example of why people plead guilty under the threat of a trial tax. Kenneth withstood the immense pressure to plead guilty. A child of only fifteen, charged with murder under the “hand of one, hand of all” doctrine, he exercised his right to a jury trial, foregoing a twenty-three-year offer to plea to manslaughter. He refused to relinquish his right to appeal, foregoing a thirty-year plea offer following guilty verdicts at trial. He paid the price. Most defendants plead guilty to avoid the trial tax; Kenneth went to trial, and the trial tax was levied against him in the form of a fifty-year sentence. By contrast, Kenneth’s co-defendants pleaded guilty and received significantly shorter sentences. NACDL is uniquely positioned to observe the criminal justice system. Over time, based on empirical data and the experiences of its members, NACDL has developed an understanding of the trial tax—the reality that individuals who choose to exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trial face exponentially higher sentences if they invoke the right to trial and lose. It is NACDL’s position that the trial tax is antithetical to the American concept of justice because it diminishes jury trials, undermines the legal system’s goal of truth-seeking, relieves the government of its burden of proof, contributes to wrongful convictions, and disproportionately hurts young people. Kenneth Robinson’s case in particular starkly reveals the dangers to a defendant who chooses to exercise his constitutional right to trial.
Amicus curiae brief of the ACLU Foundation, South Carolina National Office, the Brennan Center for Justice, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, and the South Carolina Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of appellant Michael Turner.
Argument: Because the Sixth Amendment requires that courts appoint counsel for indigent defendants where imprisonment is a possibility, South Carolina family court are required to appoint counsel to represent indigent defendants in family court child support nonpayment proceedings where imprisonment is a possibility.