National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Basic facts
Location:| Washington, D.C.
Type:| 501(c)(6)
Top official:| Barry Pollack, President
Year founded:| 1958
Website:| Official website

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is a 501(c)(6) membership organization that aims to influence criminal justice policies and practice. According to SCOTUSblog, the group is a left-leaning organization; their focus on "defendants’ constitutional right to counsel" has allied them with traditionally right-leaning groups like the Cato Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, according to Reuters.[1][2]

## Contents

* 1 Mission
* 2 Background
* 3 Work
* 3.1 Amicus brief activity
* 4 Leadership
* 5 Finances
* 6 Recent news
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

## Mission[edit]

According to its website, the NACDL has the following mission statement:[3]

“  | Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime...

Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense profession...

Promote the proper and fair administration of criminal justice.[4]

| ”

|
|

## Background[edit]

The NACDL was founded in 1958 as a professional bar association. According to the group's website they have "9,200 direct members in 28 countries - and 90 state, provincial and local affiliate organizations totaling up to 40,000 attorneys -- include private criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, law professors and judges." The group's national headquarters are in Washington, D.C.[5]

## Work[edit]

The main work of the NACDL is to defend the constitutional rights of those accused of crimes. The group's primary objective is "preserving fairness within America's criminal justice system."[5] The group aims to ensure fairness for those who have been accused of crimes by advocating for reforms to forensic science in the courtroom, stronger protections for attorney-client privilege, guarantees of defendants' right to a fair trial, and providing counsel for those who cannot afford it.

In the area of forensics, the NACDL has called for a greater emphasis on science in the evidence collection and analysis processes. Barry Pollack, the group's president, told The Wall Street Journal in 2016 that forensic evidence in the courtroom "cries out for further independent analysis." He further suggested that "the jury should never hear from an expert who doesn’t have real science behind him."[6]

According to Reuters, one of the association's primary objectives is to provide legal counsel to those who are unable to afford quality representation. In 2014, Reuters reported, "Providing good lawyers for defendants who can’t afford counsel is a core mission for NACDL." The article went on to call the organization "a group dedicated to defending the downtrodden."[2]

### Amicus brief activity[edit]

The NACDL, through its Amicus curiae committee, files amicus curiae briefs in courts throughout the country. This committee aims "to provide amicus assistance on the federal and state level in those cases that present issues of importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and/or the criminal justice system as a whole, and to do so in a manner that is consistent with NACDL policy and complements NACDL’s public policy advocacy initiatives."[7]

In two separate reviews of amicus activity, SCOTUSblog found that the NACDL had filed the second-most amicus briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court. The first review was of briefs filed between May 2004 and August 2007; the second reviewed briefs from May 2009 to August 2012.[1][8]

The following are the U.S. Supreme Court cases for which the NACDL has filed amicus briefs from 2004 to 2016, according to the NACDL's website.

Amicus briefs filed by the NADCL in the U.S. Supreme Court, 2004-2016

2004[9]

* Crawford v. Washington
* Roper v. Simmons
* Shepard v. United States

2005[10]

* Arthur Andersen, LLP v. United States
* Bell v. Thompson
* Bradshaw v. Stumpf
* Davis v. Washington
* Day v. McDonough
* Deck v. Missouri
* Evans v. Chavis
* Georgia v. Randolph
* Gonzalez v. Crosby
* Halbert v. Michigan
* Hammon v. Indiana
* Maryland v. Blake
* Medellin v. Dretke
* Moussaoui v. United States
* Padilla v. Hanft
* Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
* Sanchez-Villalobos v. United States

2006[11]

* Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman
* Burton v. Waddington
* Carey v. Musladin
* Claiborne v. United States & Rita v. United States
* Cunningham v. California
* Dixon v. United States
* Garcetti v. Ceballos
* Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Hamdan II)
* Lawrence v. Florida
* Lopez v. Gonzales
* Rita v. United States
* Schriro v. Landrigan
* Stolt-Nielsen v. United States
* United States v. Gonzales-Lopez
* United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
* Washington v. Recuenco
* Whorton v. Bockting

2007[12]

* Begay v. United States
* Boulware v. United States
* Boumediene v. Bush
* Cuellar v. United States
* Gall v. United States & Kimbrough v.United States
* Gonzalez v. United States
* Hrasky v. United States
* Kennedy v. Louisiana
* United States v. Rodriquez
* United States v. Santos
* Virginia v. Moore

2008[13]

* Abuelhawa v. United States
* Arizona v. Gant
* Arizona v. Johnson
* Bell v. Kelly
* Boyle v. United States
* Burgess v. United States
* Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
* Corley v. United States
* Flores-Figueroa v. United States
* Giles v. California
* Greenlaw v. United States
* Herring v. United States
* Hirko v. United States
* Indiana v. Edwards
* Kay v. United States
* Knowles v. Mirzayance
* Marcrum v. Roper
* Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
* Montejo v. Louisiana
* Oregon v. Ice
* Pearson v. Callahan
* Puckett v. United States
* Rivera v. Illinois
* Rothgery v. Gillespie County
* Van de Kamp v. Goldstein
* Vermont v. Brillon
* Waddington v. Sarausad

2009[14]

* Al-Marri v. Spagone
* Berghuis v. Smith
* Bloate v. United States
* Briscoe v. Virginia
* Carr v. United States
* Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder
* Conrad M. Black v. United States
* District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne
* Florida v. Powell
* Graham v. Florida; Sullivan v. Florida
* Johnson v. United States
* Kansas v. Ventris
* Kiyemba v. Obama
* McDaniel v. Brown
* Maryland v. Shatzer
* Nacchio v. United States
* Nijhawan v. Holder
* Padilla v. Kentucky
* Pottawattamie Cty. v. McGhee
* Skilling v. United States
* United States v. Comstock
* Weyhrauch v. United States
* Wood v. Allen

2010[15]

* Abbott v. United States
* Allshouse v. Pennsylvania
* Al-Turki v. Colorado
* Barber v. Thomas
* Barbour v. Louisiana
* Berghuis v. Thompkins
* Bullcoming v. New Mexico
* Connick v. Thompson
* Dolan v. United States
* Harrington v. Richter
* J.D.B. v. North Carolina
* Maples v. Allen
* Michigan v. Bryant
* Pendergrass v. Indiana
* Pepper v. U.S.
* Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson
* Smith v. United States
* Turner v. Rogers
* United States v. O’Brien

2011[16]

* Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd
* Blueford v. Arkansas
* Camreta v. Greene
* Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington et al.
* George v. Louisiana
* Gonzalez v. Thaler
* Greene v. Fisher
* Judulang v. Holder
* Lafler v. Cooper & Missouri v. Frye
* Maples v. Thomas
* McNeill v. United States
* Norris v. United States
* Perry v. New Hampshire
* Pethtel v. Ballard
* Rosario v. Griffin
* Smith v. Cain
* Southern Union Co. v. United States
* United States v. Jones
* United States v. Tinklenberg
* White & Case LLP v. United States
* Williams v. Illinois

2012[17]

* Alleyne v. United States
* Allshouse v. Pennsylvania
* Arizona v. United States
* Boyer v. Louisiana
* Brooks v. United States
* Chaidez v. United States
* Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
* Descamps v. United States
* Dorsey v. United States and Hill v. United States
* Elashi v. United States
* Evans v. Michigan
* Florida v. Harris
* Florida v. Jardines
* Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission
* Henderson v. United States
* Johnson v. Williams
* Kaley v. United States
* King v. United States
* Miller v. Louisiana
* Missouri v. McNeely
* Pickering v. Colorado
* Pleau v. United States and Chafee v. United States
* Rhodes v. Judiscak
* Robbins v. Texas
* Rubashkin v. United States
* Salinas v. Texas
* Shaygan v. United States
* Simels v. United States
* Smith v. United States
* Southern Union Co. v. United States
* United States v. Alvarez
* United States v. Vasquez

2013[18]

* Behanna v. United States
* Burrage v. United States
* Burt v. Titlow
* Carpenter v. United States
* Fernandez v. California
* Heath v. United States
* Heien v. North Carolina
* Kaley v. United States
* Kansas v. Cheever
* Maryland v. King
* Metrish v. Lancaster
* Navarette v. California
* Riley v. California
* Ring v. United States
* Rosemond v. United States
* Salinas v. Texas
* Sekhar v. United States
* United States v. Apel
* United States v. Castleman
* United States v. Davila
* White v. Woodall

2014[19]

* Agrawal v. United States
* Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson
* Deemer v. Beard
* Dunlap v. Idaho
* Heien v. North Carolina
* Henderson v. United States
* Loughrin v. United States
* Medina v. Arizona
* Mellouli v. Holder
* Nelson v. Wisconsin
* Plumhoff v. Rickard
* Riley v. California
* United States v. Wurie
* Warger v. Shauers
* Whitfield v. United States
* Yates v. United States

2015[20]

* Bruce v. Samuels
* Davis v. United States
* Glasmann v. Washington
* Glossip v. Gross
* Gonzalez v. Connecticut
* Johnson v. United States
* Kingsley v. Hendrickson
* Luis v. United States
* Mann v. United States
* McDonnell v. United States
* McFadden v. United States
* Montgomery v. Louisiana
* Ocasio v. United States
* Ohio v. Clark
* State Farm v. United States
* Torres v. Lynch

2016[21]

* Akbar v. United States
* Bell v. United States
* Betterman v. Montana
* Binday v. United States
* Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota, and Beylund v. Levi
* Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
* Buck v. Davis
* Caroni v. United States
* Hebert v. United States
* Johnson v. Carpenter
* Luong v. Alabama
* Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois
* Mathis v. United States
* McDonnell v. United States
* Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
* Salman v. United States
* Shaw v. United States
* State Farm v. United States ex rel. Rigsby
* United States v. Bryant
* Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar
* Utah v. Strieff
* Werner v. Stephens

## Leadership[edit]

Barry Pollack is the president of the NACDL, and Rick Jones is the president-elect.[22]

According to the NACDL's website, the following individuals were members of the board of directors as of September 2016:[23]

* Jeff Adachi
* John L. Arrascada
* Dan Arshack
* Hon. Charles Atwell
* Andrew S. Birrell
* Jean-Jacques 'J' Cabou
* Maureen Cain
* Aric M. Cramer
* Pat Cresta Savage
* Candace Crouse
* Ramon de la Cabada
* Nicole DeBorde
* Marissa Elkins
* Daniella Gordon
* Tanya Greene
* Michael Heiskell
* Stephen Ross Johnson

## Finances[edit]

The following is a breakdown of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers's revenues and expenses as submitted to the IRS for the 2011 to 2013 fiscal years:

Annual revenue and expenses for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2011–2013

Tax Year| Total Revenue| Total Expenses
2013[24]| $6,842,002| $6,231,557
2012[25]| $5,963,751| $5,803,416
2011[26]| $5,219,063| $5,867,099

## Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms 'National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers'. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers - Google News

## See also[edit]

* Bravo-Fernandez v. United States
* Buck v. Davis
* Davila v. Davis
* Dean v. United States
* Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions

## External links

* National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers official website

* National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on Facebook

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Cert.-stage Amicus Briefs: Who Files Them and To What Effect?" September 27, 2007
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Reuters, "Criminal defense lawyers’ group: no reason to shun Koch Industries’ money," October 23, 2014
3. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Mission and Vision," accessed September 8, 2016
4. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "About," accessed September 9, 2016
6. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Presidential Advisory Council Questions Validity of Forensics in Criminal Trials," September 1, 2016
7. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus NACDL Amicus Curiae Committee Mission Statement," accessed September 8, 2016
8. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Cert.-stage amicus 'all stars': Where are they now?" April 4, 2013
9. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2004," accessed September 8, 2016
10. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2005," accessed September 8, 2016
11. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2006," accessed September 8, 2016
12. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2007," accessed September 8, 2016
13. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2008," accessed September 8, 2016
14. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2009," accessed September 8, 2016
15. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2010," accessed September 8, 2016
16. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2011," accessed September 8, 2016
17. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2012," accessed September 8, 2016
18. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2013," accessed September 8, 2016
19. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2014," accessed September 8, 2016
20. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2015," accessed September 8, 2016
21. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Amicus Briefs, 2016," accessed September 8, 2016
22. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Officers List," accessed September 8, 2016
23. ↑ National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "Leadership," accessed September 8, 2016
24. ↑ ProPublica, "National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers IRS Form 990 (2013)," accessed September 8, 2016
25. ↑ ProPublica, "National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers IRS Form 990 (2012)," accessed September 8, 2016
26. ↑ ProPublica, "National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers IRS Form 990 (2011)," accessed September 8, 2016

v • e

Influencers

Main|

What is an influencer? Contact the Ballotpedia team