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 16 results
According to the government, the goal of forfeiture is to take the profit out of crime. The government seeks to take private assets – including cash and real property – that it claims constitute the proceeds of criminal activity. Steven L. Kessler discusses some of the basics every attorney should know about forfeiture.
Written statement of NACDL second vice president E.E. (Bo) Edwards to the Judicial Review Commission on Foreign Asset Control regarding the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (H.R. 3164, 1999).
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.
Letter to members of the Judicial Conference regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.
Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable to criminal forfeiture.
Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure regarding proposed rule changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
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.
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.
Compelled cell phone password & seizure materials.
Parliamentarian and Asset Forfeiture Abuse Task Force co-chair E.E. (Bo) Edwards' statement to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime regarding criminal forfeiture.
Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant and Reversal
Argument: Honeycutt pronounced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review. Honeycutt changed the landscape of criminal forfeiture. Honeycutt’s rule is substantive and therefore applies retroactively on collateral review. A criminal forfeiture order entered without authority of law is a fundamental error warranting extraordinary relief. The government’s seizure of property without lawful authority violates fundamental principles of due process. Forfeiture orders based on joint and several liability violate the Eighth Amendment when the defendant received no proceeds from the crime. Permitting a forfeiture order entered without legal authority to stand serves no legitimate public interest.
