The heart of the American system of justice is the adversarial process. It is the means by which truth is pursued, justice is done, the individual is protected from government overreach, and community values are expressed.

The Sixth Amendment states that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . trial, by an impartial jury...."  The focus on jury impartiality was rooted in the desire to preserve individual liberty in the face of a tyranical government.

Garners Broad Support with the Launch of a National Reform Effort

The “trial penalty” refers to the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the longer sentence a defendant receives if convicted at trial. The manipulation of the potential penalty creates pressure to waive the right to a trial. With the launch of the Trial Penalty Report, NACDL hopes to begin a reform movement.

We write to propose a category of individuals who are deserving of clemency. Specifically, we respectfully request that you consider clemency for (1) individuals who suffered severe sentences as a consequence of having exercised their Sixth Amendment right to trial rather than having pleaded guilty and (2) individuals who accepted severe plea bargains under threat of substantially greater post-trial sentences. These scenarios—routine in our criminal justice system—illustrate a profound constitutional and human injustice: the “trial penalty”…

The Trial Penalty, Plea Bargains, and Saving the 6th Amendment Right to Trial presented by Martín Sabelli and Dan Canon

Expanding the Reach of Criminal Laws Without Increasing the Burdens on the Prosecution

Many voices have sounded the alarm and are mobilizing to untangle the complex web of laws, rules, and culture that authorize coercive plea bargaining practices.

We tell ourselves that we are protected from government abuse by a system of jury trials in which jurors decide guilt or innocence and judges determine sentences. What is the reality? We have abandoned the system of public jury trials established in the Constitution and Bill of Rights in favor of a shadow system of guilty pleas driven by the logic of prosecutorial power.

Statement Of David Patton, Executive Director and Attorney-in-Charge Federal Defenders of New York (Southern & Eastern Districts) Before the Committee on the Judiciary Over-Criminalization Task Force United States House of Representatives at a Hearing Entitled “Agency Perspectives”

Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding legislation to address the judicial discretion that allows for factoring into sentencing conduct acquitted by a jury, as proposed in Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 (H.R. 1621).

An Apprendi Primer: On the Virtues of a “Doubting Thomas” Jon M. Sands, Steven G. Kalar October 2000 18 Apprendi v. New Jersey - to the surprise of many, but not to Justice Thomas - announced a “watershed change in constitutional law.” 1 The ripples of this recent Supreme Court decision are now bei

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 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.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees an accused individual the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. However, these rights have been strained by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brief of National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support Of Respondent. 

Argument: Depriving the defendant of the right to decide whether to plead guilty unconstitutionally undermines his autonomy interest. The decision to plead guilty is entrusted to the defendant alone and thus implicates his fundamental autonomy interest. The requirement that a guilty plea be knowing and voluntary safeguards the defendant’s autonomy interest. The failure to inform the defendant of each element of the offense to which he is pleading guilty requires vacatur of the plea. Permitting the court to impose punishment based on hypothetical guilty pleas would be a dangerous constitutional innovation. Given that the Framers’ vision of a system of jury trials has already been displaced by pleas, the Court should not accept anything less than informed and voluntary pleas.