Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:15 pm
Time: 8:15 pm
Results for indigent defense
18 results foundAuthor: U.S. Department of Justice Title: Expert Working Group Report: International Perspectives on Indigent Defense Summary: The vast majority of criminal defendants in the United States are too poor to afford a lawyer, yet adequate funding and resources for defense counsel remains an elusive goal. The U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) seeks effective, evidence-based solutions to problems in indigent defense so that the nation can deliver on its constitutionally guaranteed promise to provide legal representation to people accused of crime who cannot afford it. In January 2011, the Department‘s Access to Justice Initiative (ATJ) and National Institute of Justice‘s (NIJ) International Center jointly convened an Expert Working Group (EWG) on International Perspectives on Indigent Defense to explore domestic and international practices in indigent defense. That the convening started on the same day that the Governor of Massachusetts announced his plans to overhaul the commonwealth‘s public defender system was only further evidence of the importance of identifying the best approaches to the delivery of defender services.1 The 40-person EWG consisted of leading experts drawn from multidisciplinary communities, including domestic and international practitioners, researchers, government officials and advocates from nine countries.2 The goals of the workshop were to: Help suggest federal priorities on indigent defense; Help identify research in the field of indigent defense; Learn about alternative and best practices in the provision of defender services for the poor from the United States and around the globe; Consider the transferability of successful international practices to the United States; and Forge sustained American and international collaborations in the field of criminal legal aid. Over a day and a half, participants were led in a facilitated discussion around the following six panels: The state of indigent defense in the United States generally; Costs associated with being indigent in the criminal justice system; Improvements to the provision of defender services for the poor; Improvements to the provision of defender services for juveniles; The intersection of indigent defense and immigration; and Indigent defense in indigenous communities. At the conclusion of the facilitated discussions, participants were divided into five breakout groups to identify specific, actionable recommendations for ATJ and NIJ. These breakout groups aligned with the panel topics of the convening and were organized to consider costs of being indigent, general improvements to the criminal justice system, improvements for juveniles, special considerations for immigrants and special considerations for indigenous communities. The breakout groups were asked to create recommendations to advance ATJ‘s and NIJ‘s efforts to set federal priorities in indigent defense, identify research gaps in the field and identify international practices that should be assessed for transferability to the United States. This report provides an overview of the EWG‘s discussions and includes the breakout groups‘ recommendations following the summary of the corresponding panel presentations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 10, 2012 at: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/236022.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/236022.pdf Shelf Number: 123553 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Indigent Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding and Better Determine the Extent to Which Funds Help Support This Purpose Summary: The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every person accused of a crime the right to counsel. States and localities generally fund indigent defense services, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) also provides funding that can be used for these services. GAO was asked to review federal support for indigent defendants. This report addresses, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, the (1) types of support DOJ provided for indigent defense; (2) extent to which eligible DOJ funding was allocated or awarded for indigent defense, the factors affecting these decisions, and DOJ’s actions to address them; (3) percentage of DOJ funding allocated for indigent defense and how it was used; (4) extent to which DOJ collects data on indigent defense funding; and (5) extent to which DOJ assesses the impacts of indigent defense grants, indigent defense programs have been evaluated, and DOJ has supported evaluation efforts. GAO surveyed (1) all 4,229 grant recipients about funding allocations and (2) a sample of 253 public defender offices about factors influencing their decisions to apply for funding. Though not all survey results are generalizable, they provide insights. GAO also analyzed grant related documents and interviewed relevant officials. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ increase grantees’ awareness that funding can be allocated for indigent defense and collect data on such funding. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2012. 118p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-12-569: Accessed May 15, 2012 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590736.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/600/590736.pdf Shelf Number: 125302 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Anderson, James M. Title: Measuring the Effect of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes Summary: This study examined the impact of randomly assigned public defenders and court-appointed private attorneys in the outcome of criminal cases in Philadelphia. The study found that there are vast differences in outcomes for defendants assigned different counsel types raises important questions about the adequacy and fairness of the criminal justice system. Details: Final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241158.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241158.pdf Shelf Number: 127721 Keywords: AttorneysCase ProcessingDefense Counsel (U.S.)HomicidesIndigent DefensePublic Defenders |
Author: Giovanni, Thomas Title: Gideon at 50: Three Reforms to Revive the Right to Counsel Summary: In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to counsel, even when they cannot afford one. But 50 years later, Gideon’s promise remains unrealized. Despite radical changes to our criminal justice system over the last half century, state and federal governments have not committed the funding necessary for public defenders to keep pace with the rising flood of criminal cases. Many public defenders lack the staff, time, training, and resources to investigate each case adequately or prepare a robust legal defense. Often, they end up spending only minutes per case due to overwhelming and unrealistic caseloads. As a result, they are simply unable to provide clients with their constitutional right to counsel, effectively making Gideon an unfunded mandate at a time when public defenders are needed most. Today, we live in an era of mass incarceration. The United States leads the world in number of people in prison. After 40 years of the War on Drugs and “tough on crime” policies, there are currently 2.3 million people behind bars — disproportionately people of color. Nearly half the people in state prison are there for nonviolent crimes, and almost half the people in federal prison are there for drug crimes. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), researchers estimate that anywhere from 60 to 90 percent of criminal defendants need publicly-funded attorneys, depending on the jurisdiction. Yet most public defenders are unable to meet this demand due, in part, to the deluge of low-level charges and misdemeanor cases. To make matters worse, prosecutors often bring charges against defendants that are far higher than warranted by the facts of the case, and defenders often do not have time or resources to assertively negotiate with prosecutors in plea discussions. Defendants are then left to accept unfair plea deals rather than risk trials that may leave them behind bars for even longer. As this broken process repeats itself in case after case, the systemic result is harsher outcomes for defendants and more people tangled in our costly criminal justice system. The routine denial of effective legal representation for poor defendants, coupled with the over-criminalization of petty offenses, feed our mass incarceration problem at great social and economic costs. Reports estimate that taxpayers spend $79 billion a year on corrections nationwide, with an average of $31,286 per state prisoner. Surely, there are better ways to spend this money — on higher education, infrastructure, job creation, or targeted crime prevention programs. Fortunately, fixes to our criminal defense system are not out of reach. Federal, state, and local governments can implement reforms to help reduce unnecessary incarceration and restore the right to counsel for poor people. This paper examines how Gideon’s unfunded mandate impacts public defenders and our criminal justice system and identifies three common-sense solutions to move the country toward a more functional and fair system of public defense. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Gideon_Report_040913.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Gideon_Report_040913.pdf Shelf Number: 128353 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorGideon v. WainwrightIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Gross, John P. Title: Gideon at 50: A Three-Part Examination of Indigent Defense in America Summary: The lack of adequate compensation for assigned counsel is a serious threat to our criminal justice system. Our adversarial system cannot function properly when defense attorneys are impeded from providing adequate representation. Low hourly wages combined with caps on fees undermine the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Low hourly wages for assigned counsel in criminal cases reinforce the idea that we have two criminal justice systems, one for the wealthy and one for the poor. This disparity violates the principle that everyone in this country stands equal before the law. Statutory caps on the already low court-appointed fees are an additional impediment to the representation of the indigent accused. These caps result in attorneys earning less per hour the more they work on a client’s case. This type of financial disincentive creates a conflict of interest for defense attorneys and undermines the confidence of the accused and the public in our criminal justice system. While the vast majority of assigned counsel zealously represents their clients, inadequate compensation substantially reduces the number of attorneys willing to represent indigent defendants and diminishes the overall quality of representation. The provision of counsel at state expense is a necessary predicate to a lawful prosecution of an accused who cannot afford his own attorney. The attorneys who represent the indigent in our nation’s criminal courts perform an invaluable service without which, the criminal justice system would collapse. Yet in many instances, states pay hourly wages that do not even cover the costs incurred by the attorneys during the course of representation. When states refuse to adequately compensate assigned counsel, they fail to discharge their constitutional obligation to the accused. The right to counsel is a fundamental American right. When states fail to adequately compensate assigned counsel, they discourage the active participation of the private bar in indigent defense, which causes excessive caseloads for public defender organizations. NACDL’s 50-State Survey of Assigned Counsel Rates documents the current funding levels for assigned counsel across the nation. It is a guide for the defense bar, assigned counsel plan administrators and government officials in all three branches who must determine compensation rates for assigned counsel. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, the information contained in the survey should provide the impetus for the reform of our nation’s assigned counsel systems so that every defendant stands equal before the law irrespective of financial status. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2013 at: www.nacdl.org Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 128358 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorGideon v. WainwrightIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Fabelo, Tony Title: Improving Indigent Defense: Evaluation of the Harris County Public Defender Summary: This report explores the challenge of providing quality indigent defense services in Harris County (Houston), Texas. For all jurisdictions, that challenge is to create and sustain an effective system that fulfills the jurisdiction's constitutional obligation, allows the fulfillment of each attorney's ethical obligation to each client, and ensures that punishment and rehabilitative resources are appropriately utilized. The Harris County Public Defender ("HCPD") began operations in early 2011. In 2012, HCPD contracted with the Justice Center for technical assistance and data analysis to assist in implementation and to evaluate the effectiveness of the office. The Justice Center interacted continuously with the office, conducting data analyses and reviewing processes to guide implementation. This report summarizes the collective knowledge generated from that work. The Justice Center set out to determine whether HCPD adds value to the criminal justice system of the county. The answer is "yes." The public defender adds significant value to the delivery of defense services in Harris County in three key ways: (1) better defense case outcomes than assigned counsel; (2) previously unavailable defense services such as training, mentoring, and advice; and, (3) defense participation in discussion of systemic issues. A blend between public and private delivery of services is recommended and exists in urban settings across the country. (Harris County was the last major urban jurisdiction in the country to add a public defender.) The demonstrated value added by the Harris County Public Defender is important for balance in a system that historically has depended heavily on assigned counsel. With HCPD now fully operational, it handles only 6 percent of the county's indigent defense trial-level cases. The public defender model depends upon lawyers who justify their taxpayer salaries, but are not so busy that they are unable to competently represent clients. In contrast, the assigned counsel system allows for attorneys, without the accountability built into the public defender model, handling much higher caseloads than those acceptable by non-binding national standards, and allows for much lower per-case costs. Outcome analyses showed lower per-case costs were connected with poorer outcomes. The tension between quality and cost is the key challenge for Harris County as well as other jurisdictions operating primarily with an assigned counsel system. Details: New York: Justice Center, Council of State Governments, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 6, 2013 at: http://www.courts.state.tx.us/tidc/pdf/JCHCPDFinalReport.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.state.tx.us/tidc/pdf/JCHCPDFinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 131594 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal Assistance to the PoorPublic Defenders (Texas, U.S.) |
Author: Sullivan, Gary Title: Poor, Powerless and in Trouble with the Law: Achieving Just Outcomes through Problem-Solving Principles Summary: Serious criminal activity by professional criminals is a numerically small part of criminal behavior. It is not inconsequential but the criminal justice system is constructed as if it is central to its operation. To put it another way, the justice system is distorted by a focus in its systems and processes on exceptional crime. The system acknowledges the threat of punishment, and utilises due process, via the adversarial system. People charged have rights, but the elimination of serious crime is the aim. This is an understandable focus but ultimately unachievable. Serious organised crime will never be completely eliminated, and the bulk of the criminal justice system's work will be with high prevalence, unremarkable crime committed by the poor and powerless. The State is increasingly transferring minor matters from the traditional criminal courts into the inflexible infringements system. It imposes penalties without taking a person's circumstances into account. Rich and poor are fined the same amount for the same infraction. The infringements system therefore impacts more heavily on the poor. After more than 30 years working in a legal service in a poor community, I have provided legal advice and representation to countless individuals and several gen-erations of families, and participated in reform activities in tenancy law, credit law, the Children's Court of Victoria, the infringements system, consumer protection and police behaviour. I have also played a role in monitoring and improving the legal professional standards in community legal services. Over this period there have been significant changes in the nature of Australian society, welfare support mechanisms and legal systems. Apart from helping relatively few individuals among the poor and powerless, these changes have not had a major positive impact, and in some areas the impact is negative. Disproportionate to their numbers in the population, the poor and powerless continue to be gathered up in the justice system. Conditions of poverty generate a high incidence of low-level crime. This commonplace criminal activity is not adequately addressed. The relationship between poverty and crime is not so much ignored but tolerated in the justice system, reflecting a view that poverty is eternal and unchanging. Addressing this imbalance in the impact of the justice system on the poor and powerless requires a more comprehensive approach to rehabilitation that addresses the root cause of the criminality, while continuing to uphold a civil society. Such an approach, based on problem-solving principles, addresses the quiet desperation, chaotic lifestyles and multiple disadvantages that bring the poor and powerless into conflict with the broader community and the justice system. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Law Foundation, 2011. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/CLC_Report_2010-11(1).pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.victorialawfoundation.org.au/images/stories/files/CLC_Report_2010-11(1).pdf Shelf Number: 132589 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent DefenseLegal AidPovertySocioeconomic Conditions and Crime |
Author: Levin, Marc Title: Bringing Balance to Pretrial Proceedings: Solutions for Early Representation of Indigent Defendants Summary: Key Points - Defendants in cases that could result in jail time are constitutionally entitled to legal representation if they cannot afford it. - The conditions set at the initial hearing, including posting a money bond, often determine whether defendants are able to obtain release prior to trial, but typically indigent defendants are not represented by counsel until at least several days later. - Making representation available earlier in the pretrial process could provide greater balance in pretrial proceedings. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective PP17-2015: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Solutions-for-Early-Representation-of-Indigent-Defendants.pdf Shelf Number: 135720 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Ransom, Sophie Title: Evaluation of the JusticeNet Self-Representation Service Pilot Summary: JusticeNet is an independent not-for-profit organisation that brokers pro bono legal assistance for low-income and disadvantaged South Australians and community organisations, predominantly for civil law matters. In September 2013, JusticeNet commenced a pilot Self-Representation Service, providing legal advice and discrete task assistance to eligible "litigants-in-person" in the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The overall aim of the Service is to improve access to justice for disadvantaged litigants-in-person in the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, while discouraging the commencement or continuation of unnecessary proceedings and encouraging the resolution of disputes through alternative means. The Office of Crime Statistics and Research at the South Australian Attorney-General's Department was contracted by JusticeNet to conduct an evaluation of the 12-month pilot project. A mixed-methods approach was used to conduct a process and outcome evaluation. The evaluation uses data from the following sources: - Service data recorded by JusticeNet; - Limited data about matters for which the Service has assisted, provided by the South Australian Supreme Court registry; - Feedback from clients recorded on client feedback forms after appointments at the Service; - Online surveys of court registry staff, volunteer students and volunteer solicitors; and - Semi-structured interviews with a JusticeNet representative, a courts registry staff member and a volunteer solicitor. Overall, the JusticeNet Self-Representation Service appears to be a well-run service that is valued by all involved with it, particularly the clients it is designed to assist. Despite some mostly minor process issues, the continuation of the Service is almost unanimously supported by all involved in the evaluation. Although based on data which is limited in terms of numbers and time, this evaluation indicates that the Service is successful in achieving its stated objectives. While difficult to quantify, the Service is likely to be making overall savings for the Supreme Court, particularly in terms of reducing workload of and demand on the registry staff, and in preventing the commencement or continuation of proceedings in relation to unmeritorious matters. The provision of basic legal advice and assistance to those who could not otherwise afford it has important benefits for self-represented litigants in terms of understanding their own rights under the law and enabling informed decision-making in relation to their matters, as well as improving the likelihood of just and fair outcomes in court for meritorious matters. The Service continues to face some challenges, particularly in relation to ongoing funding, IT issues and problems associated with the limited availability of the Service. If the Service continues, it will remain a valuable addition to the very limited range of legal services available to assist disadvantaged litigants with civil matters, and litigants-in-person in the Supreme Court civil jurisdiction. Details: Adelaide, SA: Office of Crime Statistics and Research, Policy, Projects and Technology Division, South Australian Attorney-General's Department, 2015. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2015 at: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/JusticeNet_SRS_Evaluation_Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/evaluation_reports/JusticeNet_SRS_Evaluation_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 135973 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorCourtsIndigent DefenseLegal Aid |
Author: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Title: Texas Indigent Defense Commission: Helping Counties Implement What Works For System-Wide Cost Savings Summary: Since the passage of the Fair Defense Act (FDA) of 2001,Texas has made significant progress in improving the delivery of indigent defense services and providing access to counsel to defendants in need, but there is still more work to be done. The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, in a new feature report, credits the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (Commission) and Texas counties for implementing the much needed changes of the FDA. System improvements include setting requirements for the timing of the appointment of counsel, clarifying the qualifications for appointed counsel, and requiring plans for determining a defendant's indigency. To assist counties in meeting the FDA requirements, the Commission provides valuable technical support and guidance on standards and reporting. Furthermore, the Commission distributes just over $30 million annually to Texas's 254 counties funding collected through court fines and other fees, not from the state's general revenue to support counties in their efforts to provided defense services. Unfortunately for counties, the cost of indigent services has more than doubled since the passage of the FDA in 2001, due largely to more defendants passing through the system. Although Commission funding has increased from its initial level, it still only covers about 30 percent of the increased costs incurred by counties. This report highlights why the Commission's work in supporting counties' forward-thinking strategies and best practices for providing indigent defense will result in a better, cost-saving justice system, worthy of state general revenue to help counties provide constitutionally required indigent defense to Texans. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2013. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2015 at: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TIDC%20Helping%20Counties%20Feature.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/TIDC%20Helping%20Counties%20Feature.pdf Shelf Number: 136825 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal Aid |
Author: Siegel, Jonah Aaron Title: Snapshot of Indigent Defense Representation in Michigan's Adult Criminal Courts: The MIDC'S First Survey of Local Court Systems Summary: Established in 2013 through the passage of Public Act 93, the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) aims to create statewide standards for the delivery of adult criminal indigent defense services. A key component of the MIDC's mandate is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the current operation of indigent defense representation in Michigan. To this end, the MIDC conducted a survey in 2015 of all circuit and district courts to gather basic information on the representation of poor people charged with crimes in their systems. Survey questions addressed the extent to which local public defense systems currently engage in evidence-based practices that have been identified nationally as characterizing high-quality and effective representation. With no current statewide standards dictating best practices, the survey revealed wide variation in how courts deliver services to indigent defendants. Key findings include: o Courts employ loose and varied guidelines in determining the eligibility of defendants for appointed counsel services. o In the majority of courts, defendants whose requests for counsel have been denied have no recourse to further pursue assistance. o With few exceptions, the vast majority of court systems rely on assigned counsel systems and/or contract defender systems to deliver representation to poor people. As of 2015, only six public defender offices were operational within the state, with a seventh starting operations in 2016. o There is little consistency in attorney compensation for appointed cases, with hourly rates ranging from $33 per hour to over $100 per hour. o Most appointed counsel systems do not operate independently from the judiciary. According to an informal scale, approximately one-quarter of assigned counsel systems can be considered independent, while 15% of contract defender and 40% of public defender office systems operate independently. o Only 6% of district courts require attorneys to be present at both the bail hearing and at arraignment, despite the documented importance of legal guidance in these early stages. o Sixty-three percent of court systems report the existence of confidential meeting space in both their courthouse and holding facility, though attorneys explain anecdotally that "private" meeting rooms are often filled to capacity, difficult to book, or composed of cubicle-type spaces that do not actually allow for confidential discussions. o Only 15% of indigent defense systems currently report the existence of local guidelines requiring participation in Continuing Legal Education courses. In combination with future surveys of court systems and attorneys, focus groups, and court observation, the findings from this survey will inform the development of both future standards and the creation of local compliance plans. Details: Lansing: Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://michiganidc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MIDC-Court-Survey-Report-Feb-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://michiganidc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/MIDC-Court-Survey-Report-Feb-16.pdf Shelf Number: 138155 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Title: Ensuring the Public Defense of Indigent Criminal Defendants in Cook County Summary: The report follows two years of working with stakeholders to correct problems identified by the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee that resulted in denial of a public defense for persons entitled to one. While additional work remains, there are early and clear indications that our reform efforts, along with Cook County judges' receptivity to change, have increased access to a public defense for indigent criminal defendants and improved adherence with Constitutional and statutory requirements. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice and Chicago Council of Lawyers, 2015. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Aug-2015-Indigent-Defense.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Aug-2015-Indigent-Defense.pdf Shelf Number: 138180 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Price, Diane DePietropaolo Title: Summary Injustice: A Look at Constitutional Deficiencies in South Carolina's Summary Courts Summary: When a person is accused of a crime and faces loss of life or liberty as punishment, the U.S. Constitution guarantees that person the right to a lawyer even if he or she cannot afford one. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this basic principle more than a half century ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, and in subsequent cases that expanded the right to misdemeanor prosecutions. Yet it is violated routinely every day in South Carolina courts, where scores of people are convicted, sentenced, and sometimes incarcerated, without having been represented by counsel. This paper documents the constitutional violations observed by attorneys with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 27 different courts throughout the state during several weeks between December 2014 and July 2015. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: http://www.aclusouthcarolina.org/files/8114/5977/7174/SC_Report_FINAL_04042016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclusouthcarolina.org/files/8114/5977/7174/SC_Report_FINAL_04042016.pdf Shelf Number: 138560 Keywords: Criminal Defense Gideon v. Wainwright Indigent DefenseLegal Aid Legal Defense |
Author: Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice Title: Final Report Summary: In the fall of 2014, Chief Justice Jorge Labarga issued an administrative order establishing the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice. Commission members (27 total) include leaders from each branch of government, the legal community, the business community, and others whose expertise and knowledge bring broad-based perspectives to the issues at hand. The Commission is staffed by The Florida Bar, the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and The Florida Bar Foundation. The Commission was assigned seven charges: 1. Provide a forum for discussion among the judicial branch, legislative branch, executive branch, the civil legal services and pro bono community, Bar leaders, funders, the business community, and other interested stakeholders, about issues affecting access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. 2. Identify and examine barriers that impede access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. 3. Determine how to promote coordination of legal services delivery to low income Floridians, for optimum efficiency and effectiveness. 4. Consider and evaluate components of a continuum of services for the unrepresented, taking into account consumer needs and preferences. Such components might include interactive forms; unbundled legal services; the involvement of court, law, and public libraries; and other innovations and alternatives. 5. Examine ways to leverage technology in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. 6. Identify and build partnerships among the courts, members of the private bar, providers of legal services, and other stakeholders who are engaged or interested in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. 7. Examine how available resources might be maximized and identify how additional resources might be procured in order to provide stable funding in support of services that enhance access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. Details: Tallahassee: The Commission, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2016 at: http://www.flaccesstojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ATJ-Final-Report-Court-06302016-ADA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.flaccesstojustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ATJ-Final-Report-Court-06302016-ADA.pdf Shelf Number: 139662 Keywords: Indigent DefenseLegal Aid |
Author: Sixth Amendment Center Title: The Right to Counsel in Utah: An Assessment of Trial-Level Indigent Defense Services Summary: Under Supreme Court case law, the provision of Sixth Amendment indigent defense services is a state obligation through the Fourteenth Amendment. Utah is one of just two states requiring local governments to fund and administer all indigent defense services. Though it is not believed to be unconstitutional for a state to delegate its constitutional responsibilities to its counties and cities, in doing so the state must guarantee that local governments are not only capable of providing adequate representation, but that they are in fact doing so. The state of Utah, however, has no institutional statewide presence, and a limited statewide capacity, to ensure that its constitutional obligations under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments are being met at the local level. The result is that more people accused of misdemeanors are processed through Utah's justice courts without a lawyer than are represented by counsel - upwards of 62 percent of defendants statewide, according to the state Administrative Office of Courts' data. In fact, the data suggests that in most misdemeanor justice courts, the number of misdemeanor defendants proceeding without representation is closer to 75 percent. To the degree that many of these defendants are entitled to a lawyer, the U.S. Supreme Court calls this an "actual denial of counsel." Right to counsel issues in Utah's felony courts are different in kind than those of the misdemeanor courts. There, most indigent defendants are indeed provided with a lawyer. However, depending on the local jurisdiction, that lawyer may work under financial conflicts of interest, or may be beholden to a prosecutor to secure future work, or may be appointed too late in the process or be juggling too many cases to be effective. The U.S. Supreme Court calls this a "constructive" denial of counsel. These conclusions were reached after an 18-month study of public defense services in ten sample counties (Cache, Davis, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Washington and Weber). The sample counties encompass 90 percent of the state's population and represent all eight felony-level trial court districts. The Utah Judicial Council Study Committee on the Representation of Indigent Criminal Defendants ("Study Committee") authorized the report funded through the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Details: Boston: Sixth Amendment Center, 2015. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2016 at: http://sixthamendment.org/6ac/6AC_utahreport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://sixthamendment.org/6ac/6AC_utahreport.pdf Shelf Number: 140318 Keywords: Criminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal AidRight to Counsel |
Author: Gibbs, Penelope Title: Justice Denied? The experience of unrepresented defendants in the criminal courts Summary: What price justice? There have always been defendants in the magistrates' courts who have appeared without a lawyer, particularly in traffic cases. But our report suggests that there has been a significant increase in the number of people representing themselves who are not choosing to do so. The main reasons are: - ineligibility for legal aid due to income or type of offence, - lack of awareness of rights to legal aid, - lack of organisation. The judges and lawyers we interviewed are concerned that unrepresented defendants are at a disadvantage, and only differed in their views of how significant that disadvantage was. As one magistrate pointed out, luck plays its part. If an unrepresented defendant appears in front of a very empathetic bench, an experienced legal adviser and a prosecutor who is also used to defending, they are likely to be patiently coached through the process. But they may instead face a busy court, with no legal adviser, where inexperienced and/ or impatient advocates and judges are under pressure to deal with cases speedily. It takes time, skill and confidence to deal with unrepresented defendants well, and involves treading a fine line between providing support and maintaining the neutrality of the court process. Unfortunately, many lawyers felt that some colleagues and court staff do not go the extra mile and, even when they do, cannot make up for the lack of a defence advocate. Executive summary There are no official figures for the number of unrepresented defendants in the magistrates' courts, though all interviewees felt numbers had recently increased. Official statistics from the Crown courts indicate numbers have remained steady at around 6% over the last five years. The lack of data means unrepresented defendants in the magistrates' courts are invisible in policy terms. But we have found that the impact on court staff, judges and advocates of dealing with unrepresented defendants is immense - cases are taking longer, and explanation skills and patience are being tested. Many advocates doubt there are genuine savings to the State in denying legal representation to reluctant defendants, but the absence of a cost benefit analysis means we don't know for certain. What is clear is the cost to justice - interviewees had witnessed unrepresented defendants not understanding what they were charged with, pleading guilty when they would have been advised not to, and vice versa, messing up cross examination of witnesses, and getting tougher sentences because they didn't know how to mitigate. Most advocates felt more and better access to legally aided lawyers was the only answer. Certainly, that is one potential remedy, but we should also look at the whole system. Lawyers and judges themselves find it hard to keep up with criminal law and procedure, and are under constant pressure to speed up cases. If we are to deliver justice, we essentially have two options - to fund lawyers for all defendants who want or need them, or to change the whole system so that the needs of unrepresented defendants are integral. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2015. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TJ-APRIL_Singles.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/TJ-APRIL_Singles.pdf Shelf Number: 146676 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorCriminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal Aid |
Author: Texas Defender Service Title: Lethally Deficient: Direct Appeals in Texas Death Penalty Cases Summary: An indigent capital defendant's right to trial counsel has been a component of the State of Texas' criminal justice system since its inception. The state's first Code of Criminal Procedure in 1857 directed trial courts to appoint counsel to represent any indigent defendant charged with a capital offense. This enactment gave Texas death penalty defendants the right to trial counsel 75 years before the United States Supreme Court recognized this right in Powell v. Alabama, 247 U.S. 45 (1932). Notwithstanding this history, Texas has failed to ensure that capital defendants receive effective representation throughout death penalty cases. During the 1990s and early 2000s, national news media and legal services organizations drew attention to pervasive problems with the performance of capital defense counsel in Texas, ranging from sleeping trial lawyers to post-conviction counsel who used the same writ for every client. Reform efforts focused on improving defense representation at trial and in state habeas corpus proceedings. In 2007, the Regional Public Defender for Capital Cases, which represents indigent capital defendants in more than 170 rural Texas counties, opened its doors. In 2009, the Texas Legislature created the Office of Capital Writs, which represents death-sentenced individuals in state post-conviction proceedings. Direct appeals, and the quality of representation provided to death row inmates in these proceedings, have remained unexamined. The following report is the first evaluation of defense counsel performance in death penalty direct appeal cases in Texas. These proceedings are important because they allow for full and unencumbered review of record claims—i.e., errors that are reflected in the trial record. Habeas proceedings, which typically follow direct appeal, might not permit review of record claims or might subject those claims to a more exacting standard before the death-sentenced inmate can vindicate his rights. In preparing this report, Texas Defender Service (TDS) reviewed documents for each of the 84 death penalty direct appeals decided by the Court of Criminal Appeals between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2015. In Spring 2014, TDS began examining the assigned counsel system's statutory framework, county indigent defense plans, regional attorney qualification criteria, and attorney caseload data. We further reviewed attorney bills (when available) and the appellate record of each death penalty direct appeal— i.e., appellate briefs, motions filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals, orders on party motions, correspondence with the Court and among the parties, and opinions—decided during our survey window. Our review uncovered multiple and severe deficits in the provision of capital direct appeal representation. The deficits include inadequate resources, excessive attorney caseloads, inadequate briefing, and routine avoidance by appointed counsel of "optional procedures" such as reply briefs and applications for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. These deficiencies reflect systemic problems with the state’s indigent defense apparatus and not merely isolated failures by a handful of attorneys. Administrative and legislative reforms are necessary to ensure that the defense is adequately staffed with qualified counsel and preserve the integrity of the Texas criminal justice system. Details: Houston, TX: Texas Defender Service, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://texasdefender.org/wp-content/uploads/TDS-2016-LethallyDeficient-Web.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://texasdefender.org/wp-content/uploads/TDS-2016-LethallyDeficient-Web.pdf Shelf Number: 141173 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorCapital PunishmentDeath PenaltyIndigent DefenseLegal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Sixth Amendment Center Title: The Right to Counsel in Indiana: Evaluation of Trial Level Indigent Defense Services Summary: Under U.S. Supreme Court case law, the provision of Sixth Amendment indigent defense services is a state obligation through the Fourteenth Amendment. In Indiana, however, counties are responsible in the first instance to fund and administer services. Although it has not been held unconstitutional for a state to delegate its constitutional responsibilities to its counties, in doing so the state must guarantee that local governments are not only capable of providing adequate representation, but that they are in fact doing so. Part I of this report assesses whether Indiana meets this constitutional demand and determines that the State of Indiana's ability to monitor county indigent defense systems is either entirely absent or severely limited, depending on the type of case. FINDING #1: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in misdemeanor cases in any of its courts, including city and town courts. Misdemeanors matter. For most people, our nation's misdemeanor courts are the place of initial contact with our criminal justice systems. Much of a citizenry's confidence in the courts as a whole - their faith in the state's ability to dispense justice fairly and effectively - is framed through these initial encounters. Although a misdemeanor conviction carries less incarceration time than a felony, the collateral consequences can be just as severe. Going to jail for even a few days may result in a person losing professional licenses, being excluded from public housing and student loan eligibility, or even being deported. A misdemeanor conviction and jail term may contribute to the break-up of the family, the loss of a job, or other consequences that may increase the need for both government-sponsored social services and future court hearings (e.g., matters involving parental rights) at taxpayers' expense. Despite this, the State of Indiana and the Indiana Public Defender Commission (IPDC) do not exercise any authority over the representation of indigent people charged with misdemeanors and facing the possibility of time in jail. Indiana counties may, if they so choose, receive a partial state reimbursement of their indigent defense costs for non-misdemeanor cases in exchange for meeting standards set by the IPDC. However, counties are free to - and do - forgo state money in order to avoid state oversight. The "Indiana Model" for right to counsel services both institutionalizes and legitimizes the counties' choice to not fulfill the minimum parameters of effective representation. What many Indiana counties have realized is that they can contract with private counsel on a flat fee basis for an unlimited number of cases for less money than it would cost them to comply with state standards (even factoring in the state reimbursement). FINDING #2: The State of Indiana has no mechanism to ensure that its constitutional obligation to provide effective counsel to the indigent accused is met in felony and juvenile delinquency cases, at both the trial level and on direct appeal, in counties and courts that do not participate in the IPDC reimbursement program. Thirty-seven of Indiana's 92 counties (40%) choose not to participate in the state's non-capital case reimbursement program as of June 30, 2015. The Commission has no authority whatsoever over the representation of indigent people in the courts located in these counties, and the courts and public defense attorneys do not have to abide by the Commission's standards. Additionally, by statutory exception, Lake County is allowed to limit its request for reimbursement to certain courts and case types. Most of Lake County's courts in which indigent representation is provided do not participate in the reimbursement program. Together, the non-participating counties and courts have trial level jurisdiction over nearly one-third of the population of Indiana. Although the Indiana Model for indigent defense could potentially work to ensure that counties uphold the state's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment obligations to provide effective representation in counties that do participate in the IPDC reimbursement program(s), two things have hindered those efforts. First, state funding for the reimbursement plan has not always kept pace with its intended purpose of reimbursing 40% of non-misdemeanor costs. For example, reimbursements to counties for noncapital representation dropped to a low of only 18.3% in 2006. The inconsistency in reimbursements, in part, resulted in a number of counties leaving the program. Second, although the state is obligated to ensure effective representation to the indigent accused facing a potential loss of liberty in its five appellate districts, 91 circuit courts, 177 superior courts, and 67 city and town courts, for most of its history, IPDC operated with only a single staff member. In 2014, another staff position was added. No two people, no matter how talented, could ever possibly ensure compliance with standards in so many jurisdictions. Details: Boston: Sixth Amendment Center, 2016. 228p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/IndianaPublicDefense/ Shelf Number: 145460 Keywords: Criminal CourtsIndigent DefenseLegal AidMisdemeanorsRight to Counsel |