WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers recently voiced strong support for the newly-introduced Right to Trial Act, arguing the legislation would help protect a fundamental constitutional right and address what it describes as the harmful effects of the “trial penalty.”
The bill was proposed in an effort to “protect the constitutional right to trial and discourage imposition of extended sentences for defendants who elect to go to trial instead of accepting a plea offer.”
The NACDL is grounded in “advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing.” The organization has maintained that the concept of the trial penalty does not align with its intended mission, while the Right to Trial Act does.
If passed, the Right to Trial Act would modify the law to “allow judges to consider the right to trial at sentencing, and to authorize sentencing below a statutory minimum when that sentence would constitute a penalty for exercising the right to a trial.”
While the bill was recently introduced, this is not the first time the NACDL has expressed opposition to the trial penalty, which it defines as “the substantial difference between the sentence offered in a plea offer prior to trial versus the sentence a defendant receives after trial.”
The NACDL has taken a strong position against the trial penalty, further citing that “a system that insulates a prosecution from the searing light of a public trial invites the misuse and abuse of the criminal law.” In doing so, it strongly supports the introduction of the Right to Trial Act, as noted in its supplemental report.
“The trial penalty undermines the foundation of the criminal legal system, upending constitutional rights in the name of efficiency,” said NACDL President Andrew Birrell in a release. “Individuals who exercise their right to trial routinely face prison terms many times longer than what they would have received had they pled guilty, compelling innocent people to take guilty pleas rather than risk decades in prison.”
Furthermore, “By coercing pleas, prosecutors can conceal misconduct and constitutional violations that would otherwise be subject to scrutiny. This threatens fairness and accountability, releasing the government from their obligation to prove their case. We urge Congress to pass the Right to Trial Act and uphold the Sixth Amendment,” stated the release.
In further opposition to the trial penalty, the report noted that ample evidence supports the assertion that “federal criminal defendants are being coerced to plead guilty because the penalty for exercising their constitutional rights is simply too high to risk.” Showing unwavering resistance to the trial penalty, the report alleges that guilty pleas have essentially replaced trials.
“The virtual elimination of the option of taking a case to trial has so thoroughly tipped the scales of justice against the accused that the danger of government overreach is ever-present. And on a human level, for the defense attorney there is no more heart-wrenching task than explaining to a client who very likely may be innocent that they must seriously consider pleading guilty or risk the utter devastation of the remainder of their life with incalculable impacts on family,” stated the prior report.
Despite its claims, the organization reaffirmed that it “does not intend to censure any particular participants or constituencies. Nor is the goal of this report to denounce or abolish plea bargaining. Instead, in identifying the flaws in the plea bargaining and sentencing processes, NACDL seeks to provoke a larger conversation on how those processes can be reformed to reduce the prevalence of coercion.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
