Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:49 am
Time: 11:49 am
Results for public defenders
23 results foundAuthor: Carmichael, Dottie Title: Representing the Mentally Ill Offender: An Evaluation of Advocacy Alternatives Summary: This report presents the findings of a two-year evaluation of the two most common models through which specialized attorneys advocate for mentally ill defendants in Texas: mental health public defenders and mental health courts. The report describes the study objectives, methods, and findings, and draws conclusions about emerging roles for the defense community in improving legal and therepeutic outcomes for people with mental illness. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, Office of Court Administration, 2010. 69p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118740 Keywords: Legal Assistance to the PoorMental Health CourtsMentally Ill Offenders (Texas)Public Defenders |
Author: Farole, Donald J., Jr. Title: County-based and Local Public Defender Offices, 2007 Summary: This report examines the provision of public defender services in the 27 states and the District of Columbia in which indigent defense services were funded and administered by counties or local jurisdictions in 2007. The report presents an overview of county-based public defender offices in the context of public defender offices nationwide. It provides data on staffing, expenditures, attorney training, program standards and guidelines, and caseload data, including the number and types of cases received by county-based public defender offices and the number of attorneys needed to meet professional caseload guidelines. The report examines similarities and differences in the characteristics of public defender offices based on case volume, as measured by the number of cases received per office in 2007. Highlights include the following: County-based public defender offices received more than 4 million cases and spent nearly $1.5 billion in operating expenditures in 2007; about three-quarters (73%) of county-based public defender offices exceeded the maximum recommended limit of cases received per attorney in 2007; and county-based offices employed a median of 7 litigating public defenders. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, September 2010: Accessed October 15, 2010 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/clpdo07.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/clpdo07.pdf Shelf Number: 119976 Keywords: Legal AidLegal Assistance to the PoorPublic Defenders |
Author: Langton, Lynn Title: State Public Defender Programs, 2007 Summary: This report examines the provision of public defender services in the 22 states that had an entirely state-funded and state-administered indigent defense program in 2007. The report presents an overview of state public defender programs in the context of public defender offices nationwide. It also provides state-by-state data on staffing, expenditures, attorney training, program standards and guidelines, and caseload data, including the number and types of cases received by state public defender programs and the number of attorneys needed to meet professional caseload guidelines. Trends in caseloads, staffing, and expenditures from 1999 to 2007 are also examined. Highlights of the report include the following: State programs spent more than $830 million representing indigent defendants, which was about 14% of total state expenditures for all judicial and legal functions in 2007; public defender programs in the 13 states with death penalty statutes spent a combined $11.3 million providing capital case representation in 2007; and misdemeanor and ordinance violations accounted for the largest share (43%) of cases received by public defender programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, September 2010: Accessed October 15, 2010 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf Shelf Number: 119978 Keywords: Legal AidLegal Assistance to the PoorPublic Defenders |
Author: Minnesota: Office of the Legislative Auditor Title: Evaluation Report: Public Defender System Summary: Public defenders fulfill a constitutional requirement. By representing people who cannot afford an attorney in criminal proceedings, public defenders can also help the judicial process operate more efficiently. However, budget cuts and growing workloads have raised concerns about the state’s public defender system. In response, the Legislative Audit Commission requested an evaluation. We found that the public defender system faces significant challenges. Workloads are too high, affecting both the ability of public defenders to represent clients and the operation of state courts. We offer several recommendations to improve the system, but options for significant change will require additional resources. Details: St. Paul, MN: Office of the Legislative Auditor, Program Evaluation Division, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 120025 Keywords: CourtsLegal AidLegal Assistance to the PoorPublic Defenders |
Author: Canada. Statistics Canada Title: Legal Aid in Canada: Resource and Caseload Statistics, 2009/2010 Summary: This annual report provides an analytical overview of the revenues, expenditures and caseloads of legal aid plans in Canada. It includes information at the provincial/territorial level on legal aid delivery systems, sources of revenue, expenditures on legal aid services, and legal aid caseloads. Highlights for 2009/2010 include the following: • In 2009/2010, legal aid plans spent $762 million on providing legal aid services in 11 provinces and territories, which amounts to about $23 for every Canadian. After adjusting for inflation, legal aid spending was up about 4% from the previous year. • With the exception of Quebec and Ontario, legal aid plans spent more on criminal matters than civil matters in 2009/2010. The Quebec legal aid plan allocated 43% of its direct expenditures to criminal matters, while in Ontario the figure was 47%. In the other jurisdictions the proportion of direct expenditures on criminal matters ranged from 56% for Alberta to 74% for Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. • Legal aid in Canada is funded primarily by provincial/territorial and federal governments. In 2009/2010, legal aid plans reported receiving funding totalling over $721 million with 93% of this amount coming from government sources. Other funding is received by way of client contributions, cost recovery monies and contributions from the legal profession. • Provincial and territorial governments directly fund both criminal and civil legal aid. The $547 million contribution in 2009/2010 represented a 6% increase from the previous year (after inflation) and marked the fifth consecutive annual increase. In 2009/2010, funding was up in 9 of the 13 jurisdictions (after inflation), led by Manitoba at 31%. • The federal government contributes directly to the cost of criminal legal aid only. In 2009/2010, funding for all 13 jurisdictions totalled $112 million. After adjusting for inflation, this figure was down slightly from the year before. • About 745,000 applications for legal assistance were received by legal aid plans in the 11 reporting provinces and territories in 2009/2010, a decline of 5% from the previous year. The decline was driven by fewer civil legal aid applications as the number of criminal legal aid applications remained unchanged. Civil matters accounted for over half (55%) of applications received. • In 2009/2010, the reporting legal aid plans approved almost 500,000 applications for full legal aid services (including providing information, advice and representation in court), a decrease of 1% from the previous year. Criminal matters accounted for over half (56%) of approved applications. • In the reporting provinces and territories, almost 10,000 lawyers from both the private sector and legal aid plans provided legal aid assistance in 2009/2010, a decline of 2% from the previous year. Private lawyers accounted for 87% of those providing legal aid services, while legal aid plan staff lawyers accounted for the remaining 13%. Details: Ottawa: Ministry of Industry, 2011. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 25, 2011 at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85F0015XIE/85F0015XIE.html Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85F0015XIE/85F0015XIE.html Shelf Number: 121486 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorCourts (Canada)Legal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Justiciabarómetro: Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders in Nine Mexican States Summary: The Justiciabarómetro: Judicial Survey is a timely study of the judges, prosecutors, and public defenders that operate Mexico’s criminal justice system. The study’s results shed new light on both the current state of the administration of justice in Mexico and the sources of support for and resistance to the sweeping judicial reforms initiated by the administration of Mexican President Felipe Calderón in 2008. Among the key findings are the following: • General satisfaction with compensation, but frustration with workload varies: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • Experience and merit drives professional advancement, but some see politics: Most respondents agreed that experience and training are a primary basis for employment and promotion, a significant portion of respondents feel that political contacts also play a role. • Despite respect for legality, some tolerance of unlawful behavior for justice: Regarding lawful behavior, there was widespread agreement that “illegal conduct” is unacceptable, even if no one gets hurt. However, one in four respondents —28.2%— were willing to tolerate occasional illegalities in the pursuit of justice. • Judges and defenders tend to see prosecutors as lacking in competency and integrity: While all respondents tended to have a high opinion of the professional competency and integrity of judges and public defenders, prosecutors were viewed as less competent and trustworthy by their colleagues in other professions. • Public defenders are more critical of procedure efficiency and perceive more violations of due process than judges and prosecutors: There were significant differences judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are much more likely to disagree. • New judicial reforms seen by some ineffective, a result of foreign influence, and unlikely to reduce crime. Respondents were split on the effectiveness and efficiency of Mexico’s traditional criminal justice system, on whether that system was deliberately discredited to make way for the 2008 judicial reform, on whether foreign interests were behind the new judicial system, and whether judicial reform will reduce criminality. • Even so, new criminal procedures are generally well regarded, especially in states still awaiting reform. Still, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect; the most significant reservations tended to register among respondents from states that had already adopted the reforms for some time. Many respondents are optimistic that it will improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/justiciabarometro-judicial-survey.pdf Shelf Number: 121865 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: Ingram, Matthew C. Title: Assessing Mexico's Judicial Reform: Views of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Assessing Judicial Reform in Mexico highlights the findings of a recent Justiciabarómetro survey of 276 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders working in Mexico’s criminal justice system from October to December 2010. The full report is available at www. justiceinmexico.org. This special report summarizes respondants’ attitudes regarding the workings of the Mexican criminal justice system, as well as the sweeping judicial reforms approved by Mexico’s Congress in 2008. Among the key findings highlighted in this report are the following: • Frustration with workload varies by state and profession: Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders appear to be generally satisfied with the levels of compensation they receive, though frustration with salary and workload vary by state. • General support for the traditional Mexican legal system remains strong: More than half of the respondents —especially judges— indicated that Mexico’s traditional inquisitorial system was both efficient and effective, and at least a third feel that the traditional system was disparaged by a deliberate, negative campaign designed to promote a shift to the new adversarial system. • Public defenders are more critical of the traditional system than others: There were significant differences between judges and prosecutors, on the one hand, and public defenders, on the other, regarding the efficiency of the criminal justice system. Also, judges and prosecutors tend to believe that violations of due process —such as forced confessions— are very rare or never used, while public defenders are more likely to strongly disagree. • There is significant skepticism about recent judicial reforms. Our findings suggest that there lingering concerns about reform efforts, above all among those who are currently attempting to work within the new oral, adversarial system. Respondents were split on whether judicial reform will reduce criminality, and a significant proportion feel that the reforms were the result of pressure by foreign governments and organizations. • Even so, there is hope that recent reforms will improve the justice system. Despite the concerns we find, the provisions included in the 2008 reforms —introducing oral, adversarial criminal procedures— were generally well regarded, particularly in states where they had not yet taken effect. While there are significant reservations in states that have already adopted the reforms for some time, many respondents are optimistic that they will ultimately help to improve efficiency and reduce corruption in the judicial system. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, University of San Diego Trans-Border Institute, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Mexico URL: http://justiceinmexico.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/tbi-assessing-judicial-reform1.pdf Shelf Number: 121866 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCorruptionCourtsCriminal Justice Systems (Mexico)JudgesJudicial ReformProsecutorsPublic Defenders |
Author: 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: Scali, Mary Ann Title: Missouri: Justice Rationed: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Juvenile Delinquency Court Summary: While Missouri stands out for its innovation in providing small, regionalized juvenile corrections programs, an effective juvenile justice system is not built solely upon the corrections options available to youth after they have navigated their way through a complex legal process. An effective juvenile justice system must encompass the foundational elements of fundamental fairness and due process. The system must include legal advocacy and zealous representation by competent and well-trained attorneys who uphold the rights of children at all critical stages. The 1967 United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault extended the principles of due process to delinquency proceedings.1 It held that accused youth facing the awesome prospect of incarceration have the right to counsel.2 Due process is violated when children’s legal interests are not protected. This assessment is designed to provide policy makers and juvenile defense leaders with relevant baseline information about whether youth have timely and meaningful access to qualified counsel in delinquency proceedings, identify systemic barriers to quality representation, highlight best practices, and provide recommendations and implementation strategies for improving Missouri’s juvenile indigent defense delivery system. The report begins with a summary of the evolution of due process and the right to counsel for youth in delinquency proceedings. It then provides an overview of this right as it pertains to youth in Missouri, and gives a snapshot of the state’s judicial system, the juvenile justice system, and the indigent defense system. A synopsis of Missouri juvenile law and the various stages of delinquency proceedings are then described to facilitate an understanding of how youth navigate through the system. Details: Washington, DC: National Juvenile Defender Center, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 4, 2013 at: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.njdc.info/pdf/Missouri_Assessement.pdf Shelf Number: 128256 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile Indigent Defense SystemsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (Missouri, U.S.)Public 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: Marceau, Justin F Title: Gideon's Shadow Summary: The right to counsel is regarded as a right without peer, even in a field of litigation saturated with constitutional protections. But from this elevated, elite-right status, the right to counsel casts a shadow over the other, less prominent criminal procedure rights. Elaborating on this paradoxical aspect of the Gideon right – that the very prominence of the right tends to dilute other rights, or at least justify limitations on non-Gideon rights – this essay analyzes the judicial and scholarly practice of employing the counsel right as a cudgel to curb other rights. Details: Denver: University of Denver Sturm College of Law. 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Legal Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 13-20: Accessed May 8, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248366 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248366 Shelf Number: 128678 Keywords: Assistance to the PoorIndigent Defence (U.S.)Legal AidPublic Defenders |
Author: Owens, Stephen D. Title: Indigent Defense Services in the United States, FY 2008-2012 Summary: Describes the indigent defense system for each state and the District of Columbia, including information on administration, methods of operation, and funding. It provides both direct and intergovernmental indigent defense expenditures of state governments for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and presents some local government expenditures aggregated at the state level. The report uses administrative data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Government Finance Survey and available data from state government budget and appropriation documents. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014. 44p. Source: Internet Research: Technical Report: Accessed July 25, 2014 at: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/idsus0812.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/idsus0812.pdf Shelf Number: 132748 Keywords: Assistance to the Poor Indigent Defense (U.S.) Legal Aid Public Defenders |
Author: New York Civil Liberties Union Title: State of Injustice: How New York State Turns its Back on the Right to Counsel for the Poor Summary: The right to an attorney is guaranteed under the United States Constitution. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a competent lawyer even if he or she cannot afford one. But more than 50 years later, poor and often innocent New Yorkers are forced through the criminal justice system and sent to jail undefended and alone. State of Injustice: How New York State Turns its Back on the Right to Counsel for the Poor focuses on five counties: Onondaga (Syracuse), Suffolk, Ontario, Schuyler and Washington. In each of these counties, people too poor to afford private attorneys too often appear before judges without a lawyer by their side, or are forced to navigate the criminal justice system with a revolving cast of overworked attorneys unfamiliar with their cases. Public defense attorneys who strive to protect the rights of their clients are too often thwarted by caseloads up to five times the recommended maximums and a lack of resources for investigations, experts and even workplace basics like computers. New York has turned its back on decades of studies and official reports warning that indigent defendants are consistently denied their right to counsel. As a result, justice in New York often is available only for those who can afford it. Details: New York: NYCLU, 2014. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 6, 2014 at: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_hh_report_FINAL.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_hh_report_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 133563 Keywords: Assistance to the Poor Indigent Defense (New York State) Legal Aid Public Defenders |
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: University of California, Berkeley. School of Law. Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy Title: Los Angeles County Juvenile Indigent Defense System Summary: The County's juvenile indigent defense system was created over twenty years ago. Since that time, juvenile defense has evolved; defense attorney's roles have expanded; and attorneys are required to serve their client not only during all phases of the delinquency process, but including representation of the juvenile once his/her case has concluded. Defense attorneys are now expected to provide post-disposition representation which ensures the youth receives services ordered by the court, such as educational, medical and psychological; representation at post-disposition meetings; assisting with the sealing or expunging of records; and appealing of cases. Unfortunately, the County's system has not changed nor kept up-to-date with these new and expanding defense requirements. The aforementioned concerns and other system improvements are discussed in more detailed below and in the attached consultants report. Details: Berkeley, CA: The Institute, 2016. 258p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2016 at: http://file.lacounty.gov/bc/q1_2016/cms1_241526.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://file.lacounty.gov/bc/q1_2016/cms1_241526.pdf Shelf Number: 138614 Keywords: Defense AttorneysIndigent Defense, JuvenilesJuvenile OffendersLegal AidLegal Assistance to the PoorPublic Defenders |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: A report on Chicago's felony courts Summary: At Chicago's Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue, the sheer volume of felony cases has overwhelmed the judges, the prosecutors, and the public defenders. The jail houses nearly 10,000 inmates awaiting trial. It is estimated that at least 20% and perhaps as many as 50% of these inmates suffer from untreated mental illness. The courtrooms hear more than 28,000 cases per year, half of which are non-violent, drug-related charges. Each judge at 26th Street has on average 275 pending cases at any one time. The adult probation department seeks to handle more than 23,000 felony offenders at any one time. Many improvements have been made as the courts struggle to adapt to the realities of operating beyond capacity, but patchwork adaptations are not good enough. This report is a result of unprecedented collaboration among leaders with a commitment to reform. Presiding Judge Paul Biebel, State's Attorney Richard Devine, and Public Defender Edwin Burnette opened their offices to this study and provided both advice and data. An advisory committee of local experts served to identify issues and review findings. Ultimately, the public gets the criminal justice system that it chooses. The choices are made in elections and in decisions on legislation, enforcement priorities, and taxes. The resulting system may not be chosen consciously, but it is chosen nonetheless. Because we disapprove of conduct that we consider immoral, our instinct is to punish it. This may be the case even if the conduct does not directly touch our own lives. But we often do not consider the costs of imposing punishment. Some money is well-spent - the incapacitation of harmful offenders is necessary to the maintenance of an orderly society. Every person put in jail, however, requires that money be spent for police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and jailers, and money to house and feed the offender. T1he public, therefore, needs to decide how much the incapacitation is worth. Punishment is purchased at a price, often a high one. Public policy decisions involve tough choices: we want safety, moral rectitude and, at the same time, low taxes, but in criminal justice, as in so much else, we cannot have all we want. We may hope, however, to make informed choices, based on fact. It is our objective here to provide recommendations based on facts and on the informed observations of those most familiar with the criminal justice system. The costs we should take into account are not limited to the expense of operating the criminal justice system; citizens and institutions outside the system bear much of the burden. Imprisonment removes workers from the labor force - in many cases, not just during the period of their imprisonment but permanently. Dealing with drug offenders on a "revolving door" basis, processing their cases but failing to rehabilitate them, produces ruined lives and neighborhoods infested with drug dealers. Misallocation of scarce law enforcement resources imposes costs on the business community because of lost productivity and increased security and healthcare costs, and it imposes costs on the working poor because of lost wages and because the poor are likely to be victims of crime. We can continue to devote our resources to the processing of minor drug cases, with little effect on the markets for drugs, or we can provide more resources aimed at drug and mental health rehabilitation and treatment - and target the criminal justice system on serious crime. If the problems described in this report are not addressed, Cook County's criminal justice system will continue to be unmanageable, costly, and inefficient. It will be a system that fails to do justice fairly and effectively. This report offers recommendations for achieving justice through accountability, independence, diversion, and rehabilitation. Accountability and independence require funding, political insulation, and legislative restraint. Diversion and rehabilitation keep defendants away from the criminal justice system entirely and stop the proverbial "revolving door" of justice through treatment services. There is almost universal acknowledgment among the major players at 26th Street that the Cook County criminal justice system needs significant improvement. Moreover, public opinion data suggest that the majority of the public supports restorative justice. For nonviolent offenders, there is considerable support for "intermediate sanctions" and for "restorative justice." There is not, however, a consensus on what can be done to improve the system. The gap between support for action and necessary action looms large. This study, along with the collaboration of the system's major stakeholders, is a step toward reform and change that is long overdue in Cook County. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2007. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2016 at: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 107838 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal CourtsDiversionFelony OffendersMentally Ill OffendersPublic Defenders |
Author: Open Society Foundations Title: Improving Pretrial Justice: The Roles of Lawyers and Paralegals Summary: On any given day, some three million people are held in pretrial detention around the world. Countless millions are unnecessarily arrested and detained by law enforcement agencies annually. Those in pretrial detention are often held in conditions and subject to treatment that is far worse than that experienced by sentenced prisoners. Pretrial detainees—who have not been tried or found guilty—can languish behind bars for years. Some detainees may literally be lost in the system. Early intervention by lawyers and paralegals can have a positive impact on pretrial justice in general and pretrial detention in particular. Examples from across the globe show that early intervention schemes can reduce the use of pretrial detention, improve the performance of criminal justice personnel, lead to more rational and effective decision-making, and increase accountability and respect for the rule of law. Lawyers and paralegals have a central role to play in advising, assisting, and representing individuals at the pretrial stage of the criminal process. Ensuring legal assistance is available at the earliest possible time allows for the most effective use of resources, as cases are dealt with at the front end of the criminal justice system. Helping to ensure that appropriate decisions regarding pretrial detention and release are made early on can reduce the use of pretrial detention. This does not just benefit the individual suspect: there are wider benefits for the administration of justice and the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system as a whole. Early intervention can play a key role in educating the public about their rights, and improving transparency, accountability, and confidence in the criminal justice system. International law requires the provision of state funding for legal advice and representation where this is in the interests of justice and the suspect or defendant does not have sufficient means to pay for it. Legal assistance at the early stages of the criminal process is not only an important right for individuals but, when effectively implemented, also produces significant benefits for criminal justice systems and for social integration: it can save money and resources, reduce the use of pretrial detention, encourage diversion from formal criminal justice processes, reduce torture and corruption, improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, and increase transparency and foster confidence in the rule of law. Fortunately, there are replicable models—from developed and developing countries alike—of effective early intervention schemes involving lawyers and paralegals. Recommendations for governments: • Make available sufficient resources to comply with international and national obligations for the provision of legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process, in particular for those who do not have sufficient means to pay for it. • Develop structures and mechanisms to make the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective. In particular, establish a legal aid institution that is independent of government and responsible for making the right to legal advice and assistance practical and effective—particularly at the early stages of the criminal process. • Review and update existing laws and procedures concerning: the right to legal advice and assistance at the early stages of the criminal process; access by lawyers and paralegals to police stations, police interviews, and pretrial detention and prison facilities; the recording of police interviews of suspects and witnesses; representation by paralegals where appropriate; the circumstances in which a defendant should be entitled to pretrial release; maximum periods of detention in police custody and pretrial detention; the maximum length of criminal proceedings and maximum number of adjournments; diversion from formal criminal proceedings; and mechanisms for enforcing them. • Ensure that reliable statistical information is routinely collected on critical aspects of the criminal justice system, including: the number of and reasons for arrests, the numbers of people charged and the nature of the charges, the numbers of people in pretrial detention, the length of detention, and the number of people receiving legal advice and representation. Recommendations for legal aid management organizations, NGOs, and professional legal bodies: • Seek to ensure that governments implement the recommendations set out above. • Identify existing mechanisms and resources for providing legal advice and assistance to suspects and defendants, especially at the early stages of the criminal process, including at police stations. Work with existing stakeholders, including bar associations, NGOs, the judiciary, and other criminal justice personnel, to identify the interventions that are most needed and how they may best be provided. • Map existing and potential sources of funding for the provision of legal advice and assistance and seek to match them with schemes designed to have the greatest impact on pretrial detention and pretrial justice generally. • Recognize the range of functions that can be performed through lawyer and paralegal schemes, including: advice, assistance, and representation to individuals; education and training for suspects, defendants, prisoners, communities, and criminal justice personnel; reform of systems, processes, and criminal justice policies. Consider which functions are likely to be the most effective given the local context. • Consider establishing pilot schemes to test the most appropriate structures and mechanisms for providing legal advice and assistance, with a view to evaluating the costs and demonstrating the financial and other benefits. • Document and disseminate promising practices and information about the financial and other benefits of early intervention by lawyers and paralegals. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2012. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Year: 2012 Country: International URL: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/16820/1/improving-pretrial-justice-20120416.pdf Shelf Number: 144945 Keywords: BailLegal AidPretrial DetentionPretrial InterventionPretrial ReleasePublic Defenders |
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: Cortes, Nancy G. Title: Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What Do Its Operators Think? Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders Summary: Justice in Mexico, a research and public policy program based at the University of San Diego, released the English version of the latest publication in the Justiciabarometro series, Justiciabarometro 2016- Perspectives on Mexico's Criminal Justice System: What do its operators think?, thanks to the generous funding from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The 2016 Justiciabarometro provides a comparative analysis of the justice system operators' demographics and perspectives, as well as comparisons to similar data collected in 2010. Survey participants included 288 judges, 279 prosecutors, and 127 public defenders in 11 Mexican states, with a response rate of 56%, a 2.4% margin of error, and a 95% confidence interval. Details: San Diego: Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science & International Relations, University of San Diego, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Mexico URL: https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2016-Justiciabarometro_English-Version_Online.pdf Shelf Number: 145065 Keywords: Court ReformCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsJudgesProsecutorsPublic Defenders |