NACDL supports legislation to reduce the number of mandatory minimum laws and restore judicial discretion in sentencing.

Letter to New York Governor Kathy Hochul in support of legislative efforts in New York that seek to abolish mandatory minimums, allow judges to reconsider excessive sentences after a specified amount of time, and strengthen "good time" and "merit time" laws in order to mitigate the drivers and consequences of the trial penalty. 

NACDL worked with the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey (ADCL-NJ) to advocate for the repeal mandatory minimums in New Jersey. 

Brief of Amici Curiae Due Process Institute and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: This case presents the question of whether a defendant's prior conviction for statutory rape under a state law that criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old can subject that defendant to a mandatory 15-year minimum sentence. Last year, the Ninth Circuit considered this question and answered "no." See United States v. Jaycox, 962 F.3d 1066. But in the decision below, the Fourth Circuit answered "yes." See Pet.App.12a-14a. In doing so, the Fourth Circuit increased Petitioner Hardin's mandatory minimum sentence from 5 years to 15 years and doubled the statutory maximum he faces from 20 years to 40. The Court should resolve this clear circuit split, which could subject hundreds of persons per year to thousands more collective years in prison based solely on geographical happenstance. As the petition explains, the Fourth Circuit's decision misinterprets the [*5] relevant statutory term--18 U.S.C. § 2252A (b)(1)'s mandatory sentencing enhancement for prior convictions "relating to . . . abusive sexual conduct involving a minor"--and distorts this Court's settled method for applying the categorical approach to sentencing enhancements. The result is a decision holding conduct that is legal in 39 States and the District of Columbia to be categorically "abusive sexual conduct" under a federal law that subjects a defendant to a 15-year mandatory minimum.

These briefs on a series of questions, including whether the government is required to prove knowledge of drug type and quantity to trigger mandatory minimum and increased maximum sentences in drug cases were filed in the 9^th Circuit by the federal defender and sentencing resource counsel in LA.

The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones.

Argument: I am CJA counsel appointed by the Court to represent my client, Defendant Eddie MartinezFigueroa, who has been charged in a multi-defendant Indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. I submit this Memorandum in support of the Defendant’s request for a Protective Order to compel the Government to provide discovery and particularization of those electronically recorded intercepts which allegedly involve him directly.

My client is 26 years old and by virtue of a prior drug conviction is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.

The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones. Through a seven month investigation involving the DEA, the New York State Police, the United States Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies, the Government employed video and personal surveillance, GPS tracking, monitoring of pen registers, and four separate Title III eavesdropping warrants, targeting four different cell phones and capturing both oral and texting communications.

NACDL President Cynthia Hujar Orr’s written statement to the U.S. Sentencing Commission regarding mandatory minimum sentencing in federal law and the value of case-specific discretion.

NACDL treasurer Bill Moffitt's testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding "three strikes" laws that result in mandatory minimum sentences.

We write to express our continued opposition to S. 3951, the PROTECT Act of 2022. In addition to creating a new five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of child pornography, the bill would make certain federal sentencing guidelines mandatory, reversing almost two decades of reform ushered in by United States v. Booker.  The bill would resurrect the failed and disproportionately severe sentencing policies of the past, with no corresponding benefit to public safety. We urge you to oppose it.

We are writing to express our strong opposition to S. 3951, the PROTECT Act of 2022. In addition to creating a new 5-year federal mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of child pornography, the bill would overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker and make certain federal sentencing guidelines mandatory. The bill would signal a return to failed policies of the past and threaten to undo all the progress you have made together to restore discretion and proportionality to federal sentencing.

NACDL supports legislation to reduce the number of mandatory minimum laws and restore judicial discretion in sentencing.

NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually
First Steps for State Sentencing Reform

Executive Director Norman Reimer's letter to the New Mexico State Senate Finance Committee regarding a proposal to expand the offenses that would trigger mandatory life sentences under the state's three strikes law (HB 56, 2016).

Executive Director Norman Reimer's letter to the New Mexico State Senate Judiciary Committee regarding a proposal to expand the offenses that would trigger mandatory life sentences under the state's three strikes law (HB 56, 2016).