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 - 15 of 35 results
President-elect Gerald B. Lefcourt, Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards, Attorney David B. Smith, and Susan Davis' written statements to the House Judiciary Committee regarding Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 1997 (H.R. 1965).
The Human Toll of Civil Forfeiture presented by Jennifer McDonald and Dan Alban of Institute for Justice
NACDL successfully advocated for the passage of asset forfeiture reform legislation in Ohio.
NACDL supported asset forfeiture reform efforts in North Dakota.
Executive Director Norman Reimer's letter to the Ohio House Judiciary Committee regarding a proposal to eliminate the civil forfeiture process and rely only on criminal forfeiture and its requirements (HB 347, 2015).
Courts issue forfeiture money judgments against defendants despite the absence of statutory authority or due process protections. Defense counsel must continue to raise constitutional challenges until the Supreme Court speaks on the issue.
Follow-up letter to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
Letter to the U.S. Courts Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure Advisory Committee on Civil Rules regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards's testimony to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.
Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chairs E.E. (Bo) Edwards, David B. Smith, and Richard Troberman's written statement to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (H.R. 1916, 1995) and federal asset forfeiture programs.
Coalition letter to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies and House leadership regarding proposed amendments to the 2018 appropriations bill that would limit civil forfeiture expansion and protect property rights for those not charged or convicted of a crime (see H.R. 3354 (2017)).
Coalition letter to members of the House regarding proposed amendments to the 2018 appropriations bill that would limit civil forfeiture expansion and protect property rights for those not charged or convicted of a crime (see H.R. 3354 (2017)).
Coalition letter to House and Senate leadership and Congressional leadership regarding the overreach of federal civil forfeiture and its use before people are convicted of any offense, undermining the presumption of innocence.
Asset forfeiture – also called “policing for profit” – has come under scrutiny from courts and legislatures. Elliot Abrams provides defense lawyers with recent updates to forfeiture law, primarily focusing on pretrial seizure and attorney’s fees. Courts are taking a hard look at forfeiture and pretrial seizures, and lawyers should continue bringing statutory challenges to actions that appear to violate statutory language or a defendant’s fundamental rights.
On October 16, 2014, Representative Sensenbrenner wrote a letter to Thomas S. Winkowski, the Acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Sensenbrenner inquired about learning more on the topic of administrative pardon of property and information on the petitions filled.
