Many recent cases have exposed the fact that federal prosecutors, whether through negligence or by design, all too often fail to abide by their constitutional duty to disclose information favorable to the defendant. To help ensure fairness in federal criminal proceedings, the Board of Directors of NACDL has endorsed model legislation drafted by NACDL's Discovery Reform Task Force that would require the government to disclose all information favorable to the accused in relation to any issue to be determined in a federal criminal case. [Released May 2011]

The integrity of the criminal justice system relies on the guarantees made to the actors operating within it. For the accused, the guarantee of fair process includes not only the right to put on a defense, but to put on a complete defense. The U.S. Supreme Court recognized the importance of this guarantee over 50 years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, when it declared that failure to disclose favorable information violates the constitution when that information is material. This guarantee, however, is frequently unmet. [Released November 2014]

NACDL created The Commission to Reform the Federal Grand Jury, drawing on the expertise of a variety of professionals throughout the criminal justice system. Commissioners spent two years examining the need for changes in the grand jury process and produced a Federal Grand Jury Bill of Rights based on their findings. The ten reforms set forth in this Bill of Rights, largely echoing those proposed by the American Bar Association (ABA) more than 20 years ago, would restore balance to the grand jury process and better protect against unwarranted prosecutions. [Released May 2000]

Amici Curiae Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and the Innocence Network in Support of Appellant.

Argument: In this extraordinary case, the State conceded that it engaged in “intentional, willful, and/or reckless misconduct” to secure the conviction of Jonathan Smith when it suppressed exculpatory evidence, concealed an agreement involving a key witness who closely assisted in the State’s investigation, and repeatedly lied about this misconduct. On remand from this Court, the Attorney General agreed that this egregious and willful misconduct warranted dismissing the charges against Mr. Smith. Giving little if any weight to these concessions, the Court of Special Appeals applied an impossibly high constitutional bar for due process dismissals that is contrary to this Court’s prior opinion in this matter and to standards in other jurisdictions whose rulings the court purported to survey. Rather than sanctioning the State for its misconduct, the ruling allowed the State to retry Mr. Smith as if its misconduct never occurred and gravely minimized the resulting prejudice to Mr. Smith on any retrial. This is not a meaningful sanction to deter prosecutions, such as this one, that are pervaded from their inception by admittedly egregious and willful prosecutorial misconduct. This Court should grant certiorari to address this issue of first impression, and to devise a standard that adequately deters future prosecutorial misconduct.

We write this letter on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in order to comment on the ad hoc committee's Proposed Disclosure Rule, which was published in the Washington Law Reporter on January 29, 2016. As we discuss below, we applaud the Committee for its efforts, we support the proposed changes as filling a void in the existing rules, and we suggest additional ways in which the Proposed Disclosure Rule could be further improved. 

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: This case raises a question of fundamental importance to our criminal justice system. The circuits are split down the middle with respect to whether Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny impose affirmative obligations on criminal defendants to seek out exculpatory evidence from other sources even when the government already possesses the evidence in question. This dispute has created uncertainty about the scope of Brady's protections and has imposed investigatory obligations on some criminal defendants while imposing no such obligations on others. And it raises fundamental questions about the nature of our criminal justice system and the Constitution more broadly. These questions deserve this Court's immediate attention.

Prosecutorial overreaching and misconduct distort the truth-finding process and taint the credibility of the criminal justice system, including the outcomes they generate. When prosecutors’ fundamental obligations are ignored and individuals’ rights are violated in order to secure a conviction, little can be done to rectify the wrongs inflicted upon the individuals involved and on the system itself.

NACDL comments to the Virginia Supreme Court on proposed revisions to Virginia's discovery rules: Proposed Revisions to Rules 3A:11 and 3A:12 Received from the Virginia State Bar Criminal Discovery Reform Task Force.

Fifty years ago in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure to disclose favorable information to a defendant in a criminal prosecution violates the constitution when that information is material to guilt or punishment. This common law standard, often referred to as the Brady rule, has created confusion about what information must be disclosed, when it must be disclosed, and what remedies exist when favorable information is not disclosed.

NACDL frequently writes to members of Congress, the Department of Justice, and the president on fourth amendment issues. These letters have been collected and are available for download by clicking on the titles below.

NACDL sued the Justice Department seeking disclosure of its Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book.  This publication reportedly covers the law, policy, and practice of prosecutors’ disclosure obligations.  The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that the publication is protected work product. Included here are key pleadings filed in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' (NACDL) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking the Department of Justice's Federal Criminal Discovery Blue Book.

The "Free Flow of lnformation Act" (S. 448; H.R. 985) … was reintroduced in the 111th Congress. Soon after this legislation was introduced in the 110th Congress (S. 2035; H.R. 2102), NACDL formed its Reporters' Shield Legislation Task Force to study the proposed law and ascertain the potential implications for the integrity and fairness of our criminal justice system. I write ... to explain our specific concerns with the language of the most recent versions and to articulate our view that any legislation of this nature not be used to undermine the criminal justice process.

The Jacob Burns Ethics Center at Cardozo Law School hosted a conference on November 15-16, 2009, with leading professionals and scholars who presented their viewpoints on Brady and other disclosure obligations. This conference explored what are the best systems for information management; what kinds of training, oversight and systems of accountability are the best practices; and how we can encourage a commitment to those practices.

Senator Ted Stevens was prosecuted and convicted for criminal ethics violations, subsequently lost his re-election campaign, and, only shortly before his tragic passing, was exonerated after a whistleblower revealed that prosecutors withheld critical evidence of the Senator’s innocence in violation of his constitutional rights.