Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:00 pm
Time: 10:00 pm
Results for right to counsel
7 results foundAuthor: Garrett, Brandon L. Title: The Decline of the Virginia (and American) Death Penalty Summary: The American death penalty is disappearing. Death sentences and executions have reached the lowest levels seen in decades. Public support for the death penalty has declined. More states have abolished the death penalty or imposed de facto moratoria. Even the states formerly most aggressive in pursuit of death sentences have seen death sentences steadily decline. Take Virginia, which has the highest rate of executions of any death penalty state, and which has executed the third highest number of prisoners since the 1970s. How times have changed. There are now two or fewer trials a year in Virginia at which a judge or jury even considers imposing the death penalty. Still more surprising, over one half of those trials in Virginia now result in a life sentence (11 of 21 cases from 2005 to present at which there was a capital sentencing hearing resulted in a life sentence). Why is this happening and in Virginia of all places? In this study of the decline in the Virginia death penalty, I examine every capital trial since 2005, a group of 21 trials, and I compare those to a group of twenty capital trials from 1996 to 2004. The law on the books has not meaningfully changed in ways that would make it harder to obtain death sentences in Virginia. However, in 2004 regional capital defense resource centers were created to handle capital cases. From 1996 to 2004, the crucial sentencing phase at which the judge or jury decided whether to impose the death penalty was typically cursory, averaging less than two days long. In the more recent trials, the average was twice that - four days - and still more striking was the increase in numbers of defense witnesses called, greater use of expert witnesses, and the added complexity of sentencing proceedings. Only seven counties have imposed death sentences in the past decade in Virginia. The changed understanding of effective mitigation, together with improved defense resources, may help explain the decline. I examine additional evidence from North Carolina and Florida, situating the role of other factors such as national trends in homicide rates, and conclude by describing heightened Eighth Amendment concerns with the scattered state of the American death penalty. Details: Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia School of law, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674604 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674604 Shelf Number: 137147 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyEighth Amendment Right to Counsel |
Author: National Immigration Law Center Title: Blazing a Trail: The Fight for Right to Counsel in Detention and Beyond Summary: The federal government has long interpreted the immigration laws to mean that immigrants have a right to be represented by counsel in their deportation proceedings, but not at government expense. Making the right to counsel a reality is an imperative for all immigrants in removal proceedings, but the situation is even more critical for detained immigrants. As this report shows, the very circumstances of detention make that right a legal fiction for almost all detained immigrants. Mounting empirical data show that having a lawyer to help navigate the complex maze of the immigration detention and court systems makes a profound difference in a person's ability to gain release from detention, challenge the government's grounds for seeking their deportation, and present and win a defense that allows the person to remain in the U.S. Innovative projects in New York and New Jersey have begun to provide what we are calling in this report "universal representation," i.e., representation to any detained immigrant within the jurisdiction of a particular immigration court who does not have a private lawyer and who meets certain income requirements. Inspired by these examples, other localities across the country are examining how they can develop similar programs. Details: Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2016. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 23, 2016 at: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Right-to-Counsel-Blazing-a-Trail-2016-03.pdf Shelf Number: 138782 Keywords: Immigrant DetentionImmigrationImmigration EnforcementLegal AidRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
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: Eagly, Ingrid Title: Access to Counsel in Immigration Court Summary: It has long been the case that immigrants have a right to counsel in immigration court, but that expense has generally been borne by the non-citizen. Because deportation is classified as a civil rather than a criminal sanction, immigrants facing removal are not afforded the constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment that are provided to criminal defendants. Whereas in the criminal justice system, all defendants facing even one day in jail are provided an attorney if they cannot afford one, immigrants facing deportation generally do not have that opportunity. Detained immigrants, particularly those held in remote locations, face the additional obstacle of accessing counsel from behind bars. Yet, in every immigration case, the government is represented by a trained attorney who can argue for deportation, regardless of whether the immigrant is represented. The lack of appointed counsel may have a profound impact on immigrants' ability to receive a fair hearing. Past research has highlighted the importance of counsel for asylum seekers, and regional studies have highlighted the important role attorneys play for immigrants navigating immigration courts in New York and San Francisco. Yet, up to now, the debate about access to counsel has proceeded with little reliable national information on how many immigrants facing deportation obtain attorneys, the barriers to accessing representation, and how such representation impacts the outcomes of their cases. This report presents the results of the first national study of access to counsel in U.S. immigration courts. Drawing on data from over 1.2 million deportation cases decided between 2007 and 2012, the report provides much-needed information about the scope and impact of attorney representation in U.S. immigration courts. Details: Washington, DC: American Immigration Council, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/access_to_counsel_in_immigration_court.pdf Shelf Number: 140826 Keywords: DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration CourtsImmigration EnforcementRight to CounselUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Nugent-Borakove, M. Elaine Title: The Power of Choice: The Implications of a System Where Indigent Defendants Choose Their Own Counsel Summary: In 2013, the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) and the Comal County, Texas District and County criminal court took unprecedented steps to explore how the right to choose counsel might be extended to indigent defendants and what the impacts might be on defendants and the criminal justice system overall. Over the course of the next few years, the Client Choice program emerged. This alternative approach to indigent defense, which has been used in parts of Europe, had never been tried in the United States before. JMI is pleased to have been part of this groundbreaking effort as the project evaluator. Details: Arlington, VA: Justice Management Institute, 2017. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2017 at: http://www.jmijustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Power-of-Choice_29-MAR-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.jmijustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Power-of-Choice_29-MAR-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 144732 Keywords: Criminal Courts Indigent Defense Legal Aid Right to Counsel |
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 |
Author: National Juvenile Defender Center Title: Access Denied: A National Snapshot of States' Failure to Protect Children's Right to Counsel Summary: Based on statutory analysis and interviews with juvenile defenders in every state , the Snapshot exposes gaps in procedural protections for children - gaps that perpetuate the over-criminalization of youth, racial and economic disparities, and the fracturing of families and communities. The Snapshot explores five fundamental barriers to access to counsel for children: Eligibility procedures that prevent appointment of a publicly funded attorney; fees charged to children for what should be a free public defender; appointment that happens too late in the process for children to receive strong representation; permissive waiver of counsel; and the stripping of young people's right to an attorney after sentencing. Released on the 50th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision In re Gault, the Snapshot proposes achievable solutions to ensure access to justice for young people. Access Denied Key Findings: Children in the United States Are Not Guaranteed Lawyers: Only 11 states provide every child accused of an offense with a lawyer, regardless of financial status. Children Do Not Get Attorneys Until It Is Too Late: No state guarantees lawyers for every child during interrogation, and only one state requires it under limited circumstances. Children Must Pay for Their Constitutional Right to Counsel: Thirty-six states allow children to be charged fees for a "free" lawyer. Children's Rights Are Not Safeguarded by the States: Forty-three states allow children to waive their right to a lawyer without first consulting with a lawyer. Children's Access to Counsel Ends Too Early: Only 11 states provide for meaningful access to a lawyer after sentencing, while every state keeps children under its authority during this time. Details: Washington, DC: NJDC, 2017. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2018 at: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Snapshot-Final_single-4.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://njdc.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Snapshot-Final_single-4.pdf Shelf Number: 151306 Keywords: Juvenile CourtJuvenile DefenseJuvenile OffendersRight to Counsel |