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
Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the petition for certiorari.
Argument: The petitioner, a death row inmate, did not receive notice of an Alabama state court order denying his claims of federal constitutional error because the order was erroneously sent to an out of state law firm which returned it unopened. The state then waited until the time for appeal had elapsed before notifying the petitioner of the order, and the petitioner missed the deadline for his state court appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the state’s application of its procedural rule barring the petitioner’s state appeal as untimely was constitutionally adequate and thus federal habeas review should be denied. Argument: Certiorarishould be granted because the petitioner was blameless for the default and the state’s own conduct contributed to the default; this case should be considered in light of Martin v. Walker, No. 09-996, decided 02/23/11.