download
TRANSCRIPT
Indigent Defense:National Developments, State Funding,
and Cost-Effective Strategies
TAC Annual ConferenceAugust 25, 2009
Carl Reynolds, Administrative Director, Office of Court Administration
Jim Bethke, Director, Task Force on Indigent Defense
www.courts.state.tx.us & www.courts.state.tx.us/tfid
Agenda
National Developments and Reports
State Funding for Indigent Defense
Implementing Cost-Effective Strategies– Process and Technology in Criminal
Justice– Financial Screening– Local Costs and Appointment Trends
Justice Denied: America’s Continuing Neglect of Our
Constitutional Right to Counsel
Report of the National Right to
Counsel Committee
Background
Created in 2004 to examine the ability of the American justice system to provide adequate counsel to individuals in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases who cannot afford lawyers
Decades after the Supreme Court’s Gideon decision, there was disturbing evidence that states and localities were not providing competent counsel, despite the constitutional requirement that they do so
The Committee’s charge was to assess the extent of the problem, the various ways that states and localities provide legal representation to those who cannot hire their own lawyers, and to formulate recommendations about how to improve systems of indigent defense to ensure fairness for all Americans
Committee’s Charge
Examine the various ways that states and localities provide legal representation to those who cannot hire their own lawyers, assess the extent of the problem, and to formulate recommendations about how to improve systems of indigent defense to ensure fairness for all Americans
Why “Justice Denied”?
Inadequate funding
Large caseloads
Lack of independence
Deficient access to supporting resources
Lack of performance standards
Inconsistent advice of the right to counsel
Three Major Challenges to Reform
Budget shortfalls and difficult economic times
Crippling Caseloads
Lack of enforceable standards to ensure adequate defense
Characteristics of Effective Indigent Defense Systems
Sufficient funding Reasonable caseloads Independence in selection, appointment, and
payment of counsel Performance standards and oversight Access to vital resources
Technology, expert witnesses, etc.
Recommendations
One of the most important recommendations is that indigent defense should be :
1) independent, nonpartisan, organized at the state level, 2) adequately funded by the state from general revenues, and
3)overseen by a board or commission.
Of equal significance is the recommendation that the 4) federal government assist the states in the delivery of indigent defense services.
The right to counsel is a federal guarantee based on the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and it is entirely fitting that the federal government assist in its implementation.
U.S. Department of Justice
2010 National Symposium on Indigent Defense
February 18-19, 2010
Washington, D.C.
Pew Center on the States 2009 ReportsPew Center on the States 2009 Reports ““One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections”One in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections”
““Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-Based Sentencing Arming the Courts with Research: 10 Evidence-Based Sentencing Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs”Initiatives to Control Crime and Reduce Costs”
1 in 22 adults is under correctional control1 in 22 adults is under correctional control– in 1982, the figure was 1 in 42 adultsin 1982, the figure was 1 in 42 adults
$2.96 billion spent on corrections yearly$2.96 billion spent on corrections yearly
$1.00 prisons for every 18 cents on $1.00 prisons for every 18 cents on probation and parole ; 1 day of prison probation and parole ; 1 day of prison ($42.54) = 12 days of parole or 17 days of ($42.54) = 12 days of parole or 17 days of probationprobation
1 in 31: The Long Reach of American 1 in 31: The Long Reach of American Corrections . . . TexasCorrections . . . Texas
Arming the Courts with Research
Policy: Recidivism Reduction Strategy and Effective CollaborationOffenders: Sentence based on Risk/Needs; Supervise based on EBP, Swift & certain responses to violations Judges: Data-enabled, trained and informed, motivators for pro-social behavior
State Funding and Costs for Indigent Defense
State Appropriations Indigent Defense
Texas County Indigent Defense Expenses
* 2009 and 2010 county expenses have not yet been reported
91.5
107
117.5
127
126.5
135
144
153
30
29.5
21.5
14
14.5
11.5
0
7
11.5
17
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
StateReimbursements($ million)
CountyUnreimbursedExpenses
FY09 Funding Strategies
$30 Million Revenue
Formula Grant& Direct Disbursement
Equalization
Technical Support
Discretionary Grant•New & Innovative Programs•Replicable Programs•Targeted Specific
1919
Extraordinary
Implementing Cost-Effective Strategies – the State and Local
Challenge
Making the Most of Limited Resources
Systemic AssessmentsMidland Jail Study as a prototypeCase Management TA
Integrated Justice
SB 1259
West Texas Regional Capital Public Defender Office
Determining Indigence Study
Direct Electronic Filing Study
All Pretrial . . . . . 48.5%All Pretrial . . . . . 48.5%
All Convicted . . . 22.0%All Convicted . . . 22.0%
Federal . . . . . . . . 12.0%Federal . . . . . . . . 12.0%
And See: Art. 104.002, Texas Code of And See: Art. 104.002, Texas Code of Criminal ProcedureCriminal Procedure
Texas County Jail Populations 2006 Texas County Jail Populations 2006 (latest TCJS Report online)(latest TCJS Report online)
Systemic Assessments
Midland StudyMidland Study: Make an impact on the populations you : Make an impact on the populations you can affectcan affect
-Integrate Information and Sustain Collaboration to -Integrate Information and Sustain Collaboration to attack delaysattack delays
-Increase magistrations and arraignments-Increase magistrations and arraignments
-More resources for pretrial services-More resources for pretrial services
Case Management Case Management Technical Assistance from OCATechnical Assistance from OCA-moving cases from filing to closuremoving cases from filing to closure-http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/csp/csphome.asp
Integrated Justice
Sharing information/data across computer platforms
Current effort focused on pen packets, DPS and TDCJ data
Courts focusing on e-Filing and need to expand to data exchanges
SB 1259 Article 2.21, Code of Criminal Procedure
Requires reciprocal e-Filing capability in criminal cases, i.e.,
If a clerk of the district or county court to accepts electronic documents and exhibits from the state, the clerk must accept the same received from the defendant.
Allows the Court of Criminal Appeals to accept e-Filed documents of all types from all users.
West Texas
Regional Capital Public
Defender OfficeNACOAward
The Costs and Benefits of Indigent Screening and Verification . . .
Task Force Studies and Papers:
The Costs and Benefits of an Indigent Defendant Verification (July 2007)
Supplement to the Verification Study (Nov. 2007)
Your financial affidavits are only as good as your screening
process
Screening processes require tangible amounts of time and
money
A point person must be responsible for taking the time
to assist with screening
Verification is most feasible if there is a bright line standard
of indigence
Eligible for Justice: Guidelines for Appointing Defense Counsel
1) Screen2) Apply Screening Criteria Uniformly3) Screener Should be Conflict Free4) Appoint Counsel to Eligible Persons5) Streamline Screening Process6) Ensure Required Procedural Protections in
Place
Brennan Center For Justice (2008)
Direct Electronic Filing in Criminal Cases: Closing the Paper Trap
Published: July 2006
Direct Electronic Filing
Civil Courts:Transfer of case documents from attorneys to clerk of courts.
Criminal Courts:Case management strategy;
Automates case screening and filing;
Shares information among multiple users (law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts).
Benefits Of Direct Electronic Filing
Goal: Provide practical evidence-based guidance for jurisdictions to follow in implementing criminal justice processes that are fair, accurate, timely, efficient, and effective.
Caveat: There should never be a rush to judgment. Processes should ensure that defense counsel and prosecutors alike have amble opportunity to develop their cases.
Overview of the Study Sites
Elements of a Model Criminal Direct Electronic Filing System
Electronic transmission of case-related information from law enforcement to the prosecutor for an early filing determination
Early electronic
confirmation of defendants’ identity
Electronically facilitated
filing Integration of
information technology systems across departments involved in justice processing
Expanded public
access to defendant information
Cross-agency
commitment to long-term collaboration
Ongoing commitment to
case processing improvements
Repeated opportunities
for cross-agency education
Flexible and adaptive
work practices
Technological Features
Work Practices
Benefits Of Direct Electronic Filing
OUTCOME: Enhanced Defendant Rights
Fewer defendants are detained on charges that cannot be successfully prosecuted.
No costs of arrestNo attorney feesNo bond feesNo lost wagesNo family disruptionNo loss of freedom
Defendants that are successfully prosecuted can meet their legal obligations and resume their lives without delay.
Benefits Of Direct Electronic Filing
OUTCOME: Improved Quality of Legal Defense
When offense reports are submitted timely and reviewed promptly:
Defense counsel can have a more meaningful dialog with client and prosecuting attorney.
Charges can be resolved expeditiously.
Benefits Of Direct Electronic Filing
OUTCOME: Cost Savings to the Public Cases lacking evidence to prosecute are screened out at arrest.
No defendant transportationNo jail book-inNo housing costsNo court appointed counsel costsNo prosecution expenses
Officers spend more time in the field.
With an offense report and a filing occur quickly, 15 to 25 percent of cases are disposed quickly.
Clears jail cellsReduces court dockets
Benefits Of Direct Electronic Filing
Key ObservationsDirect electronic filing does NOT– Increase eligibility for court-appointed counsel;– Or, Ensure prompt appointment.
Direct electronic filing DOES– increase system-wide efficiency;– improve communication;– free resources needed to strengthen indigent
defense services.
Appointment Rates (2008 Cases Paid / Cases Added)
Felony Misd.
Counties Over 250,000 : 63% 42%
Counties 50,000 – 249,999: 62% 25%
Counties Under 50,000: 61% 14%
State Average: 62% 34%
Felony Appointment Trends
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
Large CountyAppointmentRate
Mid-SizedAppointmentRate
Small CountyAppointmentRate
Misdemeanor Appointment Trends
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fiscal Year
Large CountyAppointment Rate
Mid-SizedAppointment Rate
Small CountyApponitment Rate
Cost of Indigent Defense (2008)
Felony Fees $85 mil– Avg Cost per Case $555
Misdemeanor Fees $31 mil– Avg Cost per Case $180
Other $58 mil
Total $174 mil
Indigent Defense Spending
Felony Misdemeanor
Large Counties $54 mil $20 mil
Mid-Size Counties $19 mil $8 mil
Small Counties $13 mil $3 mil
Felony Appt. Rate at 62 percent
15 Counties Over 250,000 (2000 census)113,217 cases paid / 179,370 cases added
39 Counties Between 50,000 and 250,00035,712 cases paid / 57,936 cases added
$555 X 450 = $250,000
200 Counties Under 50,00026,030 cases paid / 42,957 cases added
$555 X 810 = $450,000
Misd. Appt. Rate / 34% Statewide Avg.
15 Counties Over 250,000 (2000 census)150,624 cases paid / 355,338 cases added
39 Counties Between 50,000 and 250,00035,028 cases paid / 142,566 cases added 12,760 more cases need to paid to be at state avg
Cost $2.3 million
200 Counties Under 50,00013,376 cases paid / 95,848 cases added18,750 more cases need to paid to be at state avg
Cost $ 3.4 million