1

Updated Third

APPLICANT INFORMATION October 8, 2018

Oakland County is filing this Compliance Plan with the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (“MIDC”) without waiving the constitutional and statutory issues raised in the lawsuit Oakland County filed in the Court of Claims (now in the Court of Appeals) against the State of Michigan (“State”), the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (“LARA”) and the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (“MIDC”). Oakland County hereby continues and preserves those constitutional and statutory issues. Furthermore, Oakland County does not waive and preserves any issues regarding violation of the Headlee Amendment, which arise from, inter alia, the State’s obligation to fund this Compliance Plan and all of the costs set forth herein under the MIDC Act (MCLA 780.981 et seq and more specifically MCLA 780.997(2)) and the Headlee Amendment. The County’s Compliance Plan assumes full funding by the State.

Applicant Funding Unit(s): Oakland County

Trial Courts Included in this Compliance Plan Submission: Oakland County Circuit Court (6th Judicial Circuit Court) and 52nd District Court (Divisions 1-4: Novi, Clarkston, Rochester Hills, and Troy)

Fiduciary Funding Unit: N/A

Federal ID Number: 38-6004876

Street Address/City/Zip Code: 2100 Pontiac Lake Rd, Waterford, MI 48328

AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL (Person Authorized to Enter into Agreements):

Name and Title: Michael Gingell, Chairman of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners

Street Address/City/Zip: 1200 N. Telegraph, Pontiac, MI 48341

Telephone: 248-858-0100 Email Address: gingellm@oakgov.com

Signature ________________________________ Date: May __, 2018

Please note: Board Chairman Gingell has signed this third Application Information form and is authorized to do so under Oakland County Grant Procedures. He is only authorized to sign a final agreement (an acceptance of a grant) after it has been adopted by the Board of Commissioners. This requires a resolution approved by any necessary Board Committees, passage by the full Board and acceptance by the Oakland County Executive or veto override pursuant to 1973 PA 139.

2

CONTACT INFORMATION PRIMARY CONTACT

(Person Responsible for Oversight and Reporting of Standards Implementation):

Name and Title: Malcolm Brown, Deputy County Executive

Street Address/City/Zip: 2100 Pontiac Lake Rd., Waterford, MI 48328

Telephone: 248-858-0485 Email Address: brownm@oakgov.com

Signature ________________________________ Date: May___, 2018

FINANCIAL CONTACT

(Person Responsible for Grant Accounting):

Name and Title: Lynn Sonkiss, Fiscal Services Officer Department of Management and Budget

Street Address/City/Zip: 2100 Pontiac Lake Rd., Waterford, MI 48328

Telephone: 248-858-0940 Email Address: sonkissl@oakgov.com

Signature ________________________________ Date: May ___, 2018

3

UPDATED THIRD COMPLIANCE PLAN NARRATIVE

Introduction to Compliance Plan

Oakland County is the Funding Unit for the Oakland County Circuit Court and the 52nd District Court. MCLA 600.8123(10); MCLA 780.983(g). The Oakland County Circuit Court serves all of Oakland County which is geographically one of the largest counties in the State and is the second most populous county in the State. Wayne County has the largest population of approximately 1.75 million residents followed by Oakland County with 1.24 million residents. The next most populous county is Macomb County with a population of 864,000 and then Kent County with a population of 636,000. Oakland County has nineteen Circuit Court Judges not including a Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO) approved new judgeship to be added on January 1, 2019.

The 52nd District Court is one of the largest district courts in this State. The four election divisions of the 52nd District Court comprises 75% of the land area of Oakland County (see map attached hereto as Exhibit 1) and hold approximately 48% or 593,000 of the County’s population of 1.24 million residents. The 43rd-51st District Courts serve the other 621,000 residents. See attached map. Pursuant to the mandate of MCLA 600.8123(10), the 52nd District Court has four separate courthouses located in the cities of Novi, Clarkston, Rochester Hills, and Troy. The 52nd District Court has more separate courthouses than any other District Court in the State except for the 67th District Court, which is a first class district court and encompasses all of Genesee County. The 52nd District Court also has more Judges than any district court in the State, except the 36th District Court (City of Detroit) and the 67th District Court. The 52nd District Court has the following number of judges and magistrates:

52-1 DC (Novi): 3 Judges, 3 Magistrates

52-2 DC (Clarkston): 2 Judges, 3 Magistrates

52-3 DC (Rochester Hills): 3 Judges, 3 Magistrates

52-4 DC (Troy): 2 Judges, 4 Magistrates

The Oakland County Sheriff works in conjunction with the Oakland County Circuit Court and the District Courts in Oakland County to ensure that the criminal justice system functions efficiently and safely. The Sheriff is responsible for the operation of the Oakland County Jail (OCJ), which houses approximately 1400-1500 inmates on a daily basis. The Oakland County Sheriff is also responsible for services in the Oakland County Circuit Court and the four election districts of the 52nd District Court.

Oakland County operates a county-wide court video system for all of the courts located within the County. Every District Court in Oakland County utilizes this system to conduct video arraignments of the defendants incarcerated in the OCJ, not just the 52nd District Court. The OCJ conducted 12,200 video arraignments in 2017 and has completed 4226 video arraignments in the first four months of 2018 (12,678 annually). The video conferencing system is a ‘point-to-point’ conference from the OCJ

4

to the District Court. The complexities of the logistics created by the indigent defense legislation will require additional enhancements to the video system (software and equipment), video booths and arraignment areas, as well as additional training for personnel who operate and support the video conferencing system.

MIDC Standard 4, Counsel at First Appearance, will have a significant impact on the County’s video conferencing system. As set forth in more detail later in this Compliance Plan under the heading Counsel at First Appearance, in order to comply with Standard 4, without the disruptions and delays in the video arraignment process that Standard 4 will otherwise cause, the video arraignment room at the OCJ must be renovated to accommodate attorney meetings at the OCJ with inmates prior to arraignment and attorney appearances with the inmate in the video arraignment booths in the OCJ. In addition, the video system must be modified/updated to accommodate, inter alia, video interviews between arraignment only attorneys in the 52nd District Courts and defendants in six police department lock-ups within the jurisdiction of the 52nd District Court, weekend attorney interviews between the arraignment only attorney in the OCJ and defendants in the six police department lock-ups and three screen arraignments on weekends between arraignment only attorneys at the OCJ, defendants in police lock-ups and the weekend arraignment Judge in the 52-3 District Court (Rochester Hills). The expansion of the use of the video conferencing system will involve software programming and potentially additional equipment and storage.

The video conferencing system is the lynchpin of the county-wide arraignment process. If it does not function properly then the entire system and all fourteen (14) District Courthouses in Oakland County will have to reset their arraignment schedules. Moreover, a breakdown in the system in the OCJ because interviews cannot be completed or timely completed will affect all District Courts and will potentially increase costs because arraignments will be conducted outside the normal workday schedule. This is why the timing of arraignments from the OCJ is so important and why the OCJ video arraignment room must function efficiently and timely. The renovation of the OCJ arraignment room is the most important part of the County’s Compliance Plan. Without these renovations, overtime in the OCJ will increase dramatically and the schedules of all fourteen District Courts will be negatively affected. For example, there are currently three deputies assigned to the video arraignment room every day (control room, prisoner movements, etc.). Daily overtime for a two-hour delay multiplied by the number of deputies on duty and the number of days this occurs will be costly. If video arraignments are delayed every District Courthouse will also be delayed/held over causing overtime or forcing defendants and their attorneys to return to court a second time.

Finally, the MIDC legislation and the requirements of Standards 1-4 initially required six (6) separate renovation projects. There were two renovation projects in the OCJ, one renovation project in the Oakland County Circuit Courthouse and three renovation projects in the 52-2 District Court (Clarkston). The three renovation projects in the Clarkston Courthouse (52-2) are being eliminated pursuant to the request of the County’s MIDC Representative made during the February 6, 2018 meeting where she advised that she would not recommend to the MIDC that the renovations be made to the Clarkston Courthouse because the Clarkston Courthouse is a leased facility and because the County may build a new courthouse in the future. For further explanation, the need for an additional Deputy if the renovations are not made, and formal waiver request, see infra at pages 16 to 18.

5

In addition to the three remaining renovation projects, there are six separate upgrades needed in police department lock-ups requiring equipment, installation of equipment and devices, and other modifications to police department arraignment areas. There are also upgrades to several Circuit Court meeting rooms that are necessary.

More specifically, these projects 1(excluding the Clarkston Courthouse) are:

1. Renovation of the video arraignment room in the OCJ. 2. Renovation in Block 1E of the OCJ to create two confidential meeting rooms. 3. Renovation of the in-custody meeting area in the basement of the Oakland County Circuit

Courthouse to create two confidential in-custody meeting rooms. 4. Enhancements to part of the Troy, Milford, City of Rochester and Wixom Police Departments

lock-ups to accommodate arraignment only attorney video interviews of defendants held in those police department lock-ups.

5. Modifications to the Novi and White Lake Township police lock-ups to accommodate arraignment only attorney video interviews of defendants held in those lock-ups.

6. Upgrades to several Circuit Courthouse meeting rooms. The total cost of these renovations and upgrades is estimated at $657,922. See Cost Analysis at page 1 and at pages 7 to 27. This assumes that there will be no renovations for the Clarkston Courthouse. See infra at pages 16 to 18. The Clarkston Courthouse renovations which were contained in our initial Application are described in Exhibit 5 hereto. The County does note that if no renovations are made to the Clarkston Courthouse, the County will need an additional Deputy assigned to that courthouse to manage and to provide security for meetings between in-custody defendants and indigent defense attorneys (and other attorneys). See page 17 for a description of in-custody meeting/process at the Clarkston Courthouse. QUESTION:

Briefly describe the indigent defense delivery system(s) – contract, assigned counsel, or public defender – that the funding unit(s), for which this application is being considered, employed to deliver services before the MIDC Act took effect (July 1, 2013).

RESPONSE

1 The County notes that the 180 day period for completing all of the construction/renovation/upgrading projects is not realistic. Some of these projects will take longer than six months. For example, the renovation of the OCJ video arraignment room must be conducted during the afternoon shift and the room must be cleaned and useable the next morning so that video arraignments can continue. This limitation will affect productivity. Further, since no start date can be forecast at this time because no one knows when the legislature will appropriate the funds the County cannot seek competitive bids and therefore schedule a construction start date.

6

The Oakland County Circuit Court and the 52nd District Court utilize an assigned counsel system.

The Oakland County Circuit Court operates its indigent defense system through a Local Administrative Order (LAO) (a copy is attached as Exhibit 2) that establishes a Criminal Assignment Committee comprised of five Judges selected by the Chief Judge and five attorneys selected by the President of the Oakland County Bar Association. In summary, the LOA establishes a court appointed attorney assignment and qualifications system. The appointment system operates as a modified rotational system, with Judges retaining the ability to appoint attorneys to Level 1 and 2 felony cases. See Exhibit 2, LOA at page 3, Section V.

The qualifications system is essentially divided into two parts. The first part places attorneys into one of four levels based on their skill level with one being the highest level. The Criminal Assignment Committee makes the decision concerning placement. Second, there are yearly continuing legal education (“CLE”) requirements based on the attorney’s assigned level. The Oakland County Circuit Court Administrator’s Office monitors CLE credits earned by each attorney each year and the Oakland County Bar Association (OCBA) makes CLE programs available, although attorneys can take courses other than those offered by the OCBA.

Attorneys are compensated by event. Attorneys may also seek extraordinary fees above and beyond listed events, but they are required to seek approval for such fees from the assigned Judge.

An attorney must have an office in Oakland County in order to be considered for court appointments from the Oakland County Circuit Court.

The 52nd District Court operates somewhat differently. Each Judge maintains a list of attorneys whom they have reviewed and deem qualified for court appointments. After the Judge determines whether or not the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney in accordance with the court rules, a court appointed attorney will be assigned by a designated court employee.

QUESTION

Generally, how does the system(s) intend to comply with the MIDC standards 1-4? Please address whether you will continue with the model in place above, whether you have already made a transition to a new delivery system, or whether you intend to transition to a new delivery system.

RESPONSE

From a general perspective, after full funding from the State is provided to implement its Compliance Plan, Oakland County plans to continue with the same assigned counsel system that the Oakland County Circuit Court and the 52nd District Court have utilized until Standard 5 (Judicial Independence) becomes effective. Thereafter, Oakland County may transition to another system depending upon the requirements of Standard 5 and other considerations. The County has incorporated its management and staffing needs in this Compliance Plan, including the County’s plan to hire a Chief Attorney MIDC at some point to manage the indigent defense system.

7

Further, if Standard 5 becomes effective, the Criminal Assignment Committee must be changed to remove members of the judiciary or to modify its purpose so that Judges function only in the context of reviewing attorney qualifications and performance. The system utilized by the 52nd District Court will also have to be substantially changed because the District Court Judges will no longer be able to select attorneys for court appointments or be able to place attorneys on appointment lists.

Addressing generally Standards 1-4, the County plans to meet its legal obligations with respect to each Standard. Standard 1, CLE will be met by utilizing a county-wide two year pilot CLE program presented and managed by the Oakland County Bar Association (OCBA), where the OCBA, pursuant to contract, will prepare and present CLE programming designed to meet MIDC CLE requirements free of charge to court appointed indigent defense attorneys for the Oakland County Circuit Court, the 52nd District Court and the 43rd through 51st District Courts.

The OCBA will compile and monitor attorney CLE credits for this program, provide periodic notice of credits earned by attorneys, and will report same to the MIDC and the Funding Units. Initially, the requested grant amount is $175,000 per year. This amount will be reviewed after the first or second year.

Generally, Standard 2 will be met by notifying appointed counsel at the time of appointment of the requirement to have an initial meeting with their client promptly for clients who are not in custody and within three business days of appointment for clients who are in custody. The County will monitor compliance by reviewing payment vouchers submitted by court appointed counsel. As concerns confidential meeting space for meetings with in-custody and non-custody defendants and as more fully described herein, the County must construct additional confidential meeting rooms in the OCJ and the Circuit Courthouse. Pursuant to the request of our MIDC Representative the County is seeking a waiver of compliance with Standards 2 and 4 for the Clarkston Courthouse. If the waiver is not granted, then the renovations must be made (see Exhibit 5 for a description of the necessary renovations and cost of same). If the waiver is granted, then the Clarkston Courthouse will need an additional Deputy to manage and provide security for meetings between in-custody defendants and indigent defense counsel.

Standard 3 will be met by indigent defense counsel determining on a case by case basis the need for experts and/or investigators. Counsel will follow applicable court rules and statutes to obtain approval to retain investigators and experts and for their payment.

Finally, Standard 4 will be met by providing arraignment only attorneys at each of the 52nd District Courthouses for defendants appearing in person in court for arraignment. The defendant will be interviewed by the arraignment only attorney who will also appear at the arraignment with the defendant. For defendants incarcerated in the OCJ and appearing for arraignment by video, arraignment only attorneys will be scheduled at the OCJ every day to interview the defendants incarcerated at the OCJ. After the interview, the defendant and the arraignment only attorney at the OCJ will be connected to the Judge in the District Court via video for the arraignment. For defendants in police department lock-ups within the jurisdiction of the 52nd District Court, the arraignment only attorney in the District Courthouse will interview the defendant in the police lock-ups via video connection. After the interview the arraignment only attorney will proceed to the courtroom where the arraignment only attorneys and Judge will be connected with the defendant in the police

8

department lock-up via video. Weekend arraignments, which involve more complex logistics, are discussed herein.

QUESTION

Please identify the name and position held (e.g., county administrator, judge, defense attorney, etc.) for each person involved in the compliance planning process for this delivery system.

RESPONSE

Gerald Poisson, Chief Deputy County Executive Robert Daddow, Deputy County Executive Phillip Bertolini, Deputy County Executive Malcolm Brown, Deputy County Executive Judge Nanci Grant, Chief Judge Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Julie Nicholson, 52-3 District Court, and former Chief Judge 52nd District Court Judge Maureen McGinnis, 52-4 District Court Judge Joseph Fabrizio, 52-2 District Court and Chief Judge 52nd District Court Judge Kelley Kostin, 52-2 District Court Judge Robert Bondy, 52-1 District Court Jessica Cooper, Prosecuting Attorney Paul Walton, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Michael Timm, Director Information Technology Kevin Oeffner, Circuit Court Adm. Angelina Sharon, Court Appointment Specialist Jeff Werner, Manager CLEMIS Jeffery Nesmith, Chief- CLEMIS Guy Compton, Chief Technical Services Mike McCullough, User Support Specialist Steve Jennings, Chief CLEMIS Jacob Ramey, User Support Specialist Laurie Van Pelt, Director Management & Budget Lynn Sonkiss, Fiscal Services Officer Kim Elgrably, Financial Analyst Coordinator Keith Lerminiaux, Corporation Counsel Mary Ann Jerge, Assistant Corporation Counsel Jordie Kramer, Director- Human Resources Lori Taylor, Deputy Director- Human Resources Kristy Slosson, Manager Human Resources Hailey Seguin, HR Analyst Scott Guzzy, Administrator of Purchasing

Alexandra Black, 52-1 District Court Adm. Sharon Rupe, 52-2 District Court Adm. Tom Fuentes, 52-3 District Court Adm. Jill Palulian, former 52-4 District Court Adm. Dana O’Neal, 52-4 District Court Adm. Undersheriff Michael McCabe, OCSO Major Charles Snarey, OCSO Capt. Curtis Childs, OCSO Capt. Douglas Molinar, OCSO Dale Cunningham, Sheriff Fiscal Officer Lt. Todd Hill, OCSO Lt. Tom Vida, OCSO Lt. Tom Seling, OCSO Sgt. Donald Gracey, OCSO Deputy Matthew Bailey, OCSO Barbara Hankey, Manager Community Corrections Merri Lee Jones, Oakland County Bar Association Eric Wilson, Criminal Defense Attorney Randal Secontine, Criminal Defense Attorney Robert Morad, Criminal Defense Attorney Judith Gracey, Criminal Defense Attorney Gerald Sabotta, Criminal Defense Attorney Michael McCarthy, Criminal Defense Attorney Steven Auger, Architect-Auger, Klein, Aller Art Holdsworth, Director Facilities Management Ed Joss, Manager- Facilities Planning and Eng. Brett Battishill, Architectural Engineer II Jason Warner, Planning and Eng. Supervisor

9

In addition to the above County personnel and others, numerous meetings have been held with the personnel of non-County District Courts in order that certain overlapping Standards impacting the local funding units and the County courts could be coordinated and met.

QUESTION

Provide an attachment with the names, license or P#’s, and years of criminal defense experience for all attorneys the funding units(s) intends to have deliver services as part of the local indigent defense system.

RESPONSE

See Attachment 1

10

Standard 1 – Training and Education QUESTION

Attorneys with fewer than two years of experience practicing criminal defense in Michigan shall participate in one basic skills acquisition class. Do any of the attorneys included in this plan have fewer than the required experience and require this training? How many?

RESPONSE

Yes. The actual number of attorneys (Oakland County and the 52nd District Court) with less than two years of criminal defense experience is only twenty (20) attorneys at this time. Since the County may be in need of additional attorneys, especially to be arraignment only attorneys, the County anticipates adding at least ten attorneys and will seek to recruit this many new attorneys upon the approval of the County’s Compliance Plan by the MIDC. Therefore, the total number of attorneys with less than two years’ experience could be thirty (30) or more.

As set forth herein, the County and all of the District Courts in the County are participating in a CLE program managed and operated by the OCBA. County-wide we cannot determine the number of attorneys with less than two years criminal defense experience because several District Courts did not provide this information. The number identified to date is 23 including the twenty (20) attorneys noted above.

QUESTION

All attorneys shall annually complete at least 12 hours of continuing legal education. How many attorneys require training in this plan?

RESPONSE

The number of attorneys requiring continuing legal education will obviously fluctuate once the minimum standards are enforced. At this time, there are 286 attorneys for Oakland County and the 52nd District Court and there is a total of 484 attorneys from the County of Oakland, the 52nd District Court and all of the other District Courts in the County (43rd-51st District Court, duplicates have been eliminated). See Exhibit 3.

QUESTION

How will the funding unit(s) ensure that the attorneys satisfy the 12 hours of continuing legal education during the plan year?

RESPONSE

Oakland County (Oakland County Circuit Court and the 52 District Court) and the other District Courts in Oakland County (43rd to 51st District Courts) are establishing a uniform County wide CLE program

11

through the OCBA. Oakland County employees have spent several months organizing this effort with county-wide funding units, chief judges and court administrators.

As this is a new cost directly mandated by the MIDC, after State funding is provided, the County will contract with the OCBA for a two-year pilot program under which the OCBA will provide CLE programming, will evaluate the programming, will monitor CLE credits earned by each attorney, will send attorneys emails concerning their CLE status, will send the MIDC and the Funding Units a year-end report of CLE credits earned by each attorney, and will meet with the Funding Units periodically to assess the pilot program. A draft of the contract between the OCBA and the County for a two year pilot CLE program is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. The contract will need to be finalized after MIDC approval of this CLE proposal.

All CLE monies for the Oakland County Circuit Court, the 52nd District Court and all of the non-52nd District Courts will come to Oakland County which will administer the CLE contract with the OCBA.

There is an Addendum to this contract for non-52nd District Courts to sign to participate in the CLE program. All of the non-52nd District Courts in Oakland County have stated that they want to participate in this county-wide program.

There are contract provisions covering the following:

• Purchase of software by the OCBA • Auditing by the Funding Unit, the MIDC and the State • Oakland County will receive the CLE monies for itself and all of the District Courts and will

provide same to the OCBA in accordance with a payment schedule. • Meetings between the OCBA and all Funding Units to discuss the CLE program

Oakland County has obtained a list of court appointed attorneys from the 43rd to 51st District Courts and compared these lists against its list of court appointed attorneys for the Oakland County Circuit Court and the 52nd District Court and has eliminated duplicates so that an attorney is only counted once for purposes of funding this county wide CLE system. See Exhibit 3. Again, this list is expected to fluctuate as new attorneys are added to meet the needs of the funding units. Further, multiple judges and court administrators have reported that the numbers of attorneys submitted may increase or decrease depending on how the judges manage their individual criminal appointment lists. The cost of operating this CLE program is $175,000 per annum.

This cost is comprised of the following components: OCBA will provide CLE programming for up to 500 participating attorneys. OCBA is also requiring a $25,000 annual administrative fee to cover the costs of increased overhead that the contract will require, including but not limited to the purchase and implementation of computer software and equipment to develop and deliver CLE programming (both live and webinar formats), track CLE credits for each participating attorney, and comply with County and MIDC reporting requirements. The fee will also support the administrative costs of the additional full-time employee responsible to perform curriculum development, implementation of the CLE programming, and record-keeping and reporting requirements (see OCBA contract, Exhibit 4 at pages 22-23). The contract requires four quarterly payments ($37,500 each) of the remaining $150,000, which will cover actual seminar and related costs. See Exhibit 4 pages 22-23.

12

This is a reasonable cost given the magnitude of such a training program in Michigan’s second most populous county. This cost will be evaluated in future years after the OCBA has purchased and installed software to create webinars and monitor CLE credits, hired staff, and has evaluated its programming for its effectiveness and other cost considerations.

The County is mindful of the MIDC’s mandate that CLE reimbursements will be limited to $25/credit hour and $300/attorney. However, Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray in Oakland County v State of Michigan et al, has ruled that the MIDC Guide for Submission of Compliance Plans is advisory only and anything contained therein, including the limit on CLE reimbursement to $300/attorney, does not have the force and effect of law. (11/3/17 COC 17-000216-MZ Opinion p.16). Therefore, under the Court’s ruling, any limits created by the MIDC on the funding of CLE requirements ($25/credit hour) contained in the Guide is not compulsory or enforceable.

Finally, Oakland County notes the following MIDC/Oakland County issues regarding this CLE program. Oakland County has previously raised in writing with the MIDC the following issues regarding CLE funding:

1. How will the MIDC handle inter county CLE funding requests for the same attorney (i.e. John Doe on the Wayne County list and the Oakland County and/or on the lists of multiple Wayne County District Courts).

2. If the MIDC assigns CLE monies for a number of attorneys on the Oakland County list to other funding units (i.e. Wayne County, Macomb County, 67th District Court) Oakland County will not be able to fund its program.

3. Oakland County’s program with the Oakland Bar Association depends on full funding of $175,000.

4. It is not a correct response for the MIDC or another funding unit to take the position that if attorneys are reassigned from Oakland County to another funding unit that there is no impact because Oakland County will have fewer attorneys to train.

Oakland County’s class costs are the same whether it has 70 in the classroom or 40. Oakland County’s software purchasing costs will be the same or close thereto if the County has 300 attorneys or 450 attorneys. Any cost reduction because of fewer attorneys will be minimal.

5. Oakland County’s CLE costs need to be funded at the current level of $175,000 or the program will not work. In the event the requested CLE funding is not forthcoming, Oakland County will revert to having every attorney plan and report his/her own CLE.

6. Further, if this CLE program is not approved as written and the County must operate, manage, evaluate and report to the MIDC regarding a CLE program, the County will be forced to hire, at least, one FTE Circuit Court Records Specialist at an annual cost of $85,283 ($50,186 salary, $35,097 fringe benefits) and additional professional staff as necessary to support the CLE program. Further, there will be other costs as well such as a computer program to track the program and overhead administrative and management costs that cannot be definitively ascertained at this time. Furthermore, all of the Funding Units in the County (43rd-51st District

13

Courts) will also be required to hire part-time employees to manage, track and report CLE. This Compliance Plan assumes that the foregoing CLE Plan will be approved and therefore no alternative costing is provided at this time.

14

Standard 2 – Initial Interview QUESTION

When a client is in local custody, counsel shall conduct an initial client intake interview within three business days after appointment. When a client is not in custody, counsel shall promptly deliver an introductory communication so that the client may follow-up and schedule a meeting. To be successful, this requires immediate notification of appointment and client contact information.

How does the plan facilitate immediate attorney assignment and notification of new cases? How will the system ensure attorneys are completing their interviews within three business days? How will the initial interview be accomplished?

RESPONSE

The Oakland County Circuit Court will follow the attorney notification, interview and interview verification procedure set forth below.

After arraignment and a determination by a Judge that the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney (once Standard 5 is in effect an Administrator or other person or group will become the decision maker)2, a Criminal Defense Assignment Clerk will be notified and the Assignment Clerk will contact the next attorney on the assignment list (or as otherwise selected as described earlier for Oakland Circuit Court) via telephone and/or email, advising the attorney of the assignment. Thereafter, an email will be sent to the assigned attorney with pertinent information and documents. The email will also advise the attorney that an initial interview must occur and that if the defendant is in custody the interview must occur within three (3) business days of the assignment and that if the defendant is not in custody the attorney must notify the defendant of the attorney’s appointment by email, telephone, or letter so an initial meeting with the defendant can be scheduled promptly.

Since defense attorneys will now be compensated for this initial interview, part of the payment voucher, which will be signed by the attorney, will have a place to list the attorney fee for the initial interview as well as the date the initial interview was held. An Assignment Clerk or other individual reviewing the payment voucher will verify that the initial interview occurred as described above. Further, attorneys are officers of the Court and as such are obligated to fulfill this responsibility.

The initial interview will be accomplished for in-custody defendants by having the attorney come to the OCJ and meet with the defendant in one of the confidential meeting spaces in the OCJ. For defendants who are not in-custody the initial interview will occur at the attorney’s office or other location.

For the Circuit Court there were 3690 criminal assignments in 2016 and the number of assignments will increase because there will be far fewer pleas at arraignment because arraignment only attorneys will not have sufficient information and documents to advise a defendant to plead guilty and because appointments have increased somewhat over time. Accordingly, we have increased the number of

2 Pursuant to a discussion with our MIDC Representative on May 16, 2018 determinations of indigent status needed to qualify for appointment of counsel will continue to be made by the court and not the funding units until, at least, the time that Standard 5 (Judicial Independence) is implemented.

15

appointments by 25% to 4612 and multiplied it by $75 the current rate for a jail visit. This results in a cost of $345,900 for initial interviews for the Circuit Court.

The District Courts are more complicated3. Generally, one or more Public Defenders are in each courthouse most days. Those Public Defenders handle pretrial/arraignments, pretrials and many other events/hearings/trials for indigent defendants scheduled for court that day. These Public Defenders are paid a flat rate for the day. The number of cases in which a defendant is assigned a Public Defender outside this system for all four of the 52nd District Court is estimated after implementation of the Plan at 700. At $75 per initial post arraignment interview this equals $52,500. In this situation, the specifically assigned attorney will provide an invoice on a court approved form for the initial meeting.

The total cost for the initial interviews for the Oakland County Circuit Court and 52nd District Court is $398,400 ($345,900- Circuit Court plus $52,500- 52nd District Court).

QUESTION

This Standard further requires a confidential setting be provided for all client interviews.

Does the jail have confidential space for attorney-client interviews? Describe the space available for the interviews or the plan to provide confidential space.

RESPONSE

The OCJ has existing confidential meeting rooms for attorney client interviews4, but needs to add three more meeting rooms. The existing confidential meeting rooms consist of a room that has a metal table extending from the wall with a metal seat on both sides of the table.

In Block 1E of the OCJ, which houses female inmates, the County needs to create two confidential meeting rooms for that section of the OCJ. The County has located an area immediately adjacent to Block 1E where two confidential meeting rooms can be created. The cost for this renovation is included in the facility renovations section of the Cost Analysis. 5 See Cost Analysis at page 1, and pages 13 to15.

In the male housing area on the second floor of the OCJ an available room (OCJ 2E Room 2125) needs to be furnished with a table and chairs. See Cost Analysis at page 1, and pages 13 to 15.

3 Please note: it is the County’s understanding that the MIDC is not requiring vertical attorney representation post arraignment, which would, if required effectively dismantle the 52nd District Court indigent defense system. The County cannot, at this time, provide any definite amount that establishing a new indigent defense process would cost, but considering the additional clerical, administrative, defense counsel, and Judge/Magistrate time involved the cost would not be less than $250,000 per 52nd District Courthouse (total $1 million). 4 In addition, the video arraignment area of the OCJ has no space where attorneys can meet with clients prior to arraignment and no confidential meeting rooms. Adjoining rooms need to be repurposed and renovated to create confidential attorney rooms and holding cells in order to create adequate confidential space in the video arraignment area. 5 The County objects to any caps on renovation costs or any standard involving a higher level of scrutiny for renovations costing more than $25,000 (or any other amount) because no such limitations are contained in the statute.

16

Attorneys can meet with their client in a confidential space in the jail by calling in advance to reserve a time to meet with their client or by simply appearing at the OCJ and asking to see their client. The attorney and client will be allotted the time necessary for the interview/meeting.

QUESTION

Does the courthouse have confidential space for attorney-client interviews? Describe the space available for the interviews or the plan to provide confidential space.

RESPONSE

Oakland County Circuit Courthouse

Confidential meeting space for in-custody defendants in the Oakland County Courthouse needs to be created. After the State provides funding, the County will renovate part of the detention area in the basement of the Circuit Court Courthouse into two confidential attorney client sound proofed meeting rooms. The cost of this renovation is set forth in the facilities section of the Cost Analysis.6 See Cost Analysis at page 1, and pages 16 to 18.

For non-custody defendants the County will have a total of four meeting rooms on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors of the Courthouse7. These rooms will be marked as indigent defense meeting rooms. In addition, a fifth meeting room is being designated for confidential meetings in the west wing of the Courthouse in the Oakland County Law Library. The cost of furniture and related items for these rooms is contained in the facility renovation section of the Cost Analysis. See Cost Analysis at page 1, and pages 19 to 25.

52nd District Courts

All of the 52nd District Courts have confidential meeting space for in-custody and non-custody defendants, except for the 52-2 District Court (Clarkston). In order to comply with Standards 2 and 4 the Clarkston Court must renovate three separate areas of its Courthouse or must have an MIDC approved waiver (determination that the Clarkston Courthouse is compliant with MIDC standards to the extent reasonably possible) of the renovations and an additional Deputy assigned to the Courthouse in order to accommodate meetings between in-custody defendants and indigent defense counsel.

Before discussing the Clarkston Courthouse, we note that the Clarkston District Court serves ten separate municipalities8, each with its own prosecutor for local ordinance violations, all of whom appear weekly or bi-weekly for at least one-half day in the Courthouse for meetings, hearings, and trials. All need conference rooms. So do arraignment only attorneys and other public defenders.

6 Ibid 7 If demand for these rooms permits a room may be used on occasion as a media overflow room for high profile court cases. 8 Brandon Township, Clarkston, Holly Township, Groveland Township, Independence Township, Rose Township, Springfield Township, White Lake Township, Village of Holly, Village of Ortonville.

17

Further, there is no unused space in the Clarkston Courthouse building (i.e. it is all occupied by the Clarkston Court and every square foot is utilized).

The Clarkston District Courthouse is a leased facility with a current lease term that began in 2011 and will end in 2026. The lease has an escape clause effective June 1, 2022 under which the County can terminate the lease by giving 365 days advance notice (notice before June 1, 2021).

In a meeting with the County’s MIDC Representative on February 6, 2018, the County was advised that the Representative would not recommend any renovations to the Clarkston Courthouse because the Representative did not believe that any renovations to the Clarkston Courthouse were reasonable because that courthouse is a leased facility and the County may build a new courthouse in the future. Therefore, after consultation with our MIDC Representative, the Clarkston Courthouse, as it currently exists, is compliant with the confidential meeting space requirements of the MIDC Act and Standards to the extent that is reasonably possible.

In this regard, it is important to note the following two significant facts. First, the property for a new courthouse in Clarkston was purchased in 2006. Almost 12 years later there are still no plans to actually build a courthouse and when, if ever, a new courthouse will be built is unknown. Further, the County’s Capital Improvement Plan for the next ten (10) years does not contain a plan or funds to build a new courthouse.

Second, the omission of the Clarkston Courthouse renovations means the following for the operations of the Clarkston Court, which includes the need for an additional Deputy:

• There will be no confidential meeting room for attorney/client interviews of in-custody defendants. Currently, if an attorney needs to meet with an in-custody defendant at the Clarkston District Court, the attorney is escorted back to the secure detention area. The defendant is taken out of the cell, patted down and handcuffed. Then the attorney meets with their client just outside the cell, but still in the secure hallway, with the Deputy present the entire time. When the meeting is done, the defendant is patted down again, un-handcuffed and placed back into the cell. Then the attorney is escorted back to the public area. Only one attorney is allowed into the secure area at a time. This procedure will need to be followed not only for pre-arraignment interviews, but for meetings prior to pretrials, probable cause hearings, motion hearings, and other such matters.

Without the proposed renovations, the only place to allow attorneys to consult with in-custody defendants is this secured detention hallway. Anywhere else would compromise security. Additionally, with the increased number of attorney visits and the pre-arraignment interviews, the three full time Deputies assigned to the Clarkston District Court will not be able to keep up with the increased attorney visit demands on most court days. The three full time Deputies are already responsible for the two judges’ courtrooms, the magistrate’s courtroom, the in-custody inmates, all new arrest walk-ins and general security of the court as a whole. Accordingly, the County will need another Deputy assigned to the Clarkston Courthouse for the meeting with in-custody defendants. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

18

• Meetings between indigent non-custody defendants and the arraignment only attorney will occur in a private conference room. Meetings between non-custody indigent defendants and public defenders appearing for other purposes can occur in conference rooms when available, otherwise the meetings will occur in the courthouse hallways, which are accessible by the general public. Such meetings can also be scheduled at the attorney’s office or other locations pursuant to Standard 2.

• The County will still relocate the 52nd District Court User Technician who records court statistics and does various administrative work for the Chief Judge and others, from the Clarkston Courthouse to one of the other 52nd Courthouses where there is available space. Her office can then be turned into a conference room without any renovation. New furniture would be required, but this is a minimal expense to create an additional conference room in the Clarkston Courthouse which has insufficient conference rooms for the level of activity in that Courthouse. See Cost Analysis at page 1 and 3.

• The renovations the County believes it needs to make to bring the Clarkston Courthouse into compliance with MIDC Standards 2 and 4 will not be made per agreement with the MIDC (as evidenced by this approved Compliance Plan). The acceptance of this Compliance Plan by the MIDC shall also constitute a waiver of the County’s obligation to meet the requirements of MIDC Standards 2 and 4 for the Clarkston Courthouse only. The County also hereby requests to be indemnified by the State for any lawsuits or other proceedings filed against the County for the MIDC’s decision not to fund the requisite renovations to the Clarkston Courthouse described in the County’s initial Application/Compliance Plan.

• Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a description of the renovations and the costs necessary to bring the Clarkston Courthouse into compliance with Standard 2 and 4. This was taken from the County’s first Compliance Plan. This is being provided to advise the MIDC regarding this cost in the event the MIDC decides to move forward with the renovations or the MIDC decides not to fund the cost of the additional Correctional Officer, thus making the renovations necessary.

19

Standard 3 – Experts and Investigators

QUESTION

This standard requires counsel to conduct an independent investigation. When appropriate, counsel shall request funds to retain an investigator to assist with the client’s defense. Counsel shall request the assistance of experts where it is reasonably necessary to prepare the defense and rebut the prosecution’s case. Counsel has a continuing duty to evaluate a case for appropriate defense investigations or expert assistance.

How will this standard be complied with by the delivery system?

RESPONSE

Oakland County objects to any monetary caps on the payment of experts and investigators because there are none established by the MIDC Act. Moreover, Court of Claims Judge Christopher Murray in Oakland County v State of Michigan et al has ruled that the MIDC Guide for Submission of Compliance Plans is advisory only and anything contained therein, including the limits on funding for defense experts and investigators, does not have the force and effect of law. (11/3/17 COC 17-000216-MZ Opinion p.16).

Therefore, the State should pay all of the fees and charges for experts and investigators. Further Oakland County has reviewed the allowable per hour charges set forth in the “Instructions” and believes that they are too low for an urban setting, especially Southeastern Michigan. In addition, the listing of experts has excluded a toxicologist often used in criminal cases and very difficult to locate given their scarcity in the market.

Without waiving these objections and in accordance with the MIDC investigator/expert fee schedule, Oakland County falls in Tier III ($50,000) because it had 4,130 adult criminal cases filed in 2016 at the Oakland County Circuit Court as certified by the State Court Administrators Office. Under Oakland County’s assigned counsel system the assigned counsel will make the decision as to the necessity for an investigator or expert and will have to find his/her own investigator or expert and will utilize existing payment procedures. The attorney will also have to petition the Court under applicable court rules and statutes for an order allowing use of an expert or investigator. Once Standard 5 (Judicial Independence) becomes effective, an alternate system for approval of experts and investigators will be established.

Oakland County has included an estimate of $100,000 for experts and investigators which is $50,000 more than set forth under the MIDC schedule given the virtual certainty that defendants are likely to request experts and investigators at the suggestion of defense counsel over and above the historical levels of expert costs. Oakland County believes this amount may be too low. As previously noted the MIDC fee structure for experts and investigators is too low and excludes at least one commonly used expert, a toxicologist.

20

Also supporting this increase is the fact that the County’s average yearly expenditure for experts for 2010, 2011, and 2012 was $11,590, but its average yearly expenditure for 2014, 2015 and 2016 was $36,605, a dramatic increase (3 times the 2010-2012 average). Once Standard 3 is actually implemented and defendants and criminal defense attorneys learn they can retain and utilize experts more easily, these costs will increase significantly over current levels.

Accordingly, the County considered the 3-fold increase from 2010-2012 ($11,590) to 2013-2016 ($36,605) and doubled it to accommodate the factors noted above which is a total of $73,210 and increased it to $100,000 after discussions with our MIDC Representative. This amount is set forth on page 1 and 3 of the Cost Analysis.

21

Standard 4- Counsel at First Appearance and Other Critical Stages of the Case

QUESTION

Counsel shall be appointed to provide assistance to the defendant as soon as the defendant’s liberty is subject to restriction by a magistrate or judge. All persons determined to be eligible for indigent criminal defense services shall also have appointed counsel at pre-trial proceedings, during plea negotiations and at other critical stages, whether in court or out of court.

How will this standard be complied with by the delivery system?

RESPONSE

Introduction

Standard 4, Counsel at First Appearance, will have the biggest impact on Oakland County and the 52nd District Court of all of the MIDC Standards. It will significantly impact the cost, efficiency and coordination of the arraignment process, particularly the County’s video arraignment process. The principal causes of the impact are obviously the introduction of an attorney/defendant interview prior to the arraignment and the appearance of an attorney at the arraignment. The introduction of these additional steps in the arraignment process not only for defendants who appear for arraignment in person in the courthouse, but for defendants arraigned via video from the OCJ and from police department lock-ups, significantly complicates the arraignment process.

All first arraignments are held in the District Courts including for felony and misdemeanor arrests. MCLA 600.8311. A defendant’s appearance for arraignment in the District Court generally occurs in one of the following five ways:

1. First, most defendants are issued a Ticket/Citation/Notice to Appear for Arraignment/Pretrial or Pretrial. The defendant then appears in the District Court in person at the designated time and day or on or before the last designated day to appear voluntarily.

2. Second, if a defendant fails to appear for any court appearance, a bench warrant is issued. If the defendant is not in custody, he/she may voluntarily walk in at any time while the court is open to the public to be arraigned on the bench warrant.

3. Third, there are arraignments of defendants who were arrested and held in custody in the OCJ or a police lock-up, and are transported to the District Court by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Office or by a local police agency for arraignment.

4. Fourth, there are video arraignments of defendants held in custody in the OCJ. 5. Fifth, there are video arraignments of defendants held in custody in police department lock-

ups.

22

In order to discuss the impact that Counsel at First Appearance will have on the arraignment process, the County has divided this section of the Compliance Plan into two broad parts. In part one, the County will discuss the arraignments in the District Court courtrooms, where the defendant is physically present in the courtroom (numbers 1-3 above).

In part two, the County will discuss video arraignments (number 4 and 5 above), including the video arraignment system, the OCJ video arraignment room, how video arraignments are currently processed, the pilot video arraignment runs, renovations and additions that are necessary to the video arraignment room and equipment, police department video arraignment areas and logistics, and how the County plans to have video arraignments processed in the future with attorney interviews. Due to the complexity of the video arraignment process the County will subdivide this part further into weekday and weekend video arraignments for defendants held in the OCJ and in police department lock-ups.

Finally, the County will conclude by setting forth the number of arraignment only attorneys and other staff necessary to meet the requirements of Standard 4, as well as the other Standards.

Arraignments in Person in the 52nd District Courts

Current Arraignment Procedure

Non-custodial defendants who appear in person at the 52nd District Courts for arraignment are advised of their rights by the arraigning magistrate or judge including their right to have a lawyer appointed for them if they cannot afford an attorney. If a defendant requests a court appointed attorney, the assigned Judge reviews the Petition for Court Appointed Attorney and either grants or denies it. If the Judge grants the request and a court appointed attorney is available, the defendant enters a plea of guilty or not guilty following arraignment and consultation with counsel. If a court appointed attorney is not available, the Judge may adjourn the arraignment or enter a plea of not guilty and set bond for the defendant and allow him/her to speak with a court appointed attorney at the next court appearance when a court appointed attorney is scheduled. Walk-in arraignments are handled in the same manner. Walk-in defendants appear at all hours throughout the day.

Defendants, who are in-custody, are escorted to the courtroom from a holding cell in the courthouse by a Deputy or Police Officer. Once in the courtroom the same procedure is followed as described for non-custody defendants.

Proposed New Arraignment Procedure

The County and the 52nd District Court plan to have arraignment only attorneys assigned to each District Courthouse to handle all first arraignments for that Court each day. When non-custody defendants appear in court (either as scheduled or walk-in) they will receive a Petition for Appointment of Counsel, Advice of Rights, and Consent for Arraignment-Only Attorney. The arraignment only attorney assigned to the Court that day will meet with the defendants in a private

23

room in the Courthouse designated for the arraignment only attorney. The arraignment only attorney will review the Consent form with the defendant and will interview the defendant. When all of the non-custody defendants have been interviewed, the arraignment only attorney will appear in the courtroom with the defendants for their arraignments. All of the 52nd District Court Courthouses have sufficient rooms available for attorney interviews of non-custodial defendants, except for the Clarkston Courthouse. All rooms will be appropriately marked and equipped. The County has previously described the situation in the Clarkston Courthouse (see supra at pages 16 and 18) where the MIDC has determined the Clarkston Courthouse is in compliance with MIDC Standards to the extent reasonably possible. See also Exhibit 5 which sets forth the renovations and cost necessary absent the waiver.

In-custody defendants who are transported to the District Courts by local police departments or the Sheriff’s Office will be given the above paperwork to complete in the holding cell and will be interviewed by the arraignment only attorney in confidential secure space in each Courthouse. They will then be escorted to the courtroom by a Deputy/Police Officer for their arraignment with the arraignment only attorney at a scheduled time. Please note the situation at the 52-2 District Court (Clarkston) for interviews between in-custody defendants and an attorney both before arraignment and before other court proceedings at pages 16 to 18.

Video Arraignments of In-Custody Defendants from the Oakland County Jail and Police Department Lock-Ups

In discussing video arraignments the County will first provide some basic background and then discuss video arraignments from the OCJ, describing the video arraignment room and then current video arraignment procedure for weekday and weekend arraignments. This will be followed by a description of the pilot runs utilizing arraignment only attorneys and a description of the new proposed video arraignment room. The County will then discuss the new arraignment procedure at the OCJ utilizing arraignment only attorneys in the renovated video arraignment room in the OCJ. Finally, the County will then describe video arraignments from police department lock-ups both for weekdays and weekends and the proposed new procedures for weekday and weekend video arraignments from police department lock-ups.

Background

The MIDC has stated in various documents that the use of technology is encouraged. See for example A Guide for Submission of Compliance Plans, Summer 2017 at page 10. In this regard Oakland County utilizes technology. Oakland County owns, manages, operates and funds through its General Fund a county-wide court video conferencing network for the Oakland County Circuit Court, 52nd District Court and all of the other District Courts in Oakland County (43rd – 51st District Courts) and for other requisite County operating needs. The system is operated under the name OakVideo. The non-52nd District Courts are not charged for the use of this system at its current level of service.

24

Inmates in custody in the OCJ are arraigned via video from the OCJ by Judges in all of the fourteen (14) District Court locations throughout Oakland County, not just the 52nd District Court. Video arraignments are also conducted between the 52nd District Courts and seven police department lock-ups. A few of the District Courts (43rd-51st) also utilize the OakVideo network to arraign prisoners in police department lock-ups within their respective jurisdictions. OakVideo provides additional functions beyond those required by the indigent defense statutes.

The OCJ Arraignment Room

The video arraignment room at the OCJ was never designed for attorney-client meetings or for an attorney and client to appear on camera together. It is clearly inadequate for such purposes. Video arraignments occur seven days per week. The OCJ conducted 12,200 video arraignments in 2017. During the first six months of 2017 the lowest number of OCJ video arraignments on a weekday was 23 and the highest was 95. The average number of video arraignments per weekday was 40. In the first four months of 2018, 4226 video arraignments were conducted (12,678 annually).

The layout of the current OCJ video arraignment room is included in the facility renovation section of the Cost Analysis. See Cost Analysis at page 10. There is a small control room, three small video arraignment booths, and a small waiting room which seats approximately eight to ten, very tightly. None of the video arraignment booths are sound proof and one of the booths has no door. The room is noisy and space is limited. There is no confidential space in the video arraignment room.

The Current OCJ Video Arraignment Procedure

Weekday Video Arraignment at the OCJ

The arraignment process begins with Oakland County Pretrial Services. Pretrial Services has two employees at the OCJ to interview most inmates arrested for allegedly committing felonies and some of the inmates who have been arrested for allegedly committing misdemeanors. Pretrial Services obtains basic information for the arraignment process. Under current OCJ arraignment procedure inmates will then complete an Advice of Rights form and a Petition for Court Appointed Attorney while in the holding cell/booking area. The paperwork is emailed or faxed to the District Court with the information gathered by Pretrial Services. Video arraignments begin at approximately 9:00am and unless overtime is utilized they must be completed by approximately 2:15pm so paperwork can be completed and the Deputies can depart at the end of their shift at 3:00pm.

Inmates are moved from the booking/holding cell area in groups of approximately ten to the video arraignment room in accordance with the schedule set with the District Courts. Pontiac (50th District Court) arraignments are usually set first at 9:00am and accordingly Pontiac inmates are brought down to the arraignment room first. Since there are presently no attorney interviews, inmates are placed on camera one by one until the Pontiac arraignments are completed. If there are too many Pontiac inmates to move in one group to the video arraignment room a second group is escorted to the video

25

arraignment room as the arraignments are being completed for the first group. At least one Deputy must be physically with each group that is moved to the video arraignment room. The Deputy must wait until arraignments are complete and then return the inmates to the holding/booking cell area. The process is repeated for each of the fourteen (14) courthouses which have arraignments that morning until the morning arraignments are completed. There is usually a lunch break and then the afternoon video arraignments start at approximately 1:00pm.

If this process is interrupted because the holding cell/booking area is placed in lockdown, which is not an unusual occurrence, as a result of incidents in the holding cell and booking area (such as unruly prisoners, fights between prisoners, medical emergencies, inspections, health department issues, and other such problems), the entire arraignment schedule must be reset causing substantial delay.

Weekend Video Arraignments at the OCJ

The courthouses are closed on the weekends, but arraignments must continue. Therefore, for weekend arraignments, the 52-3 District Court (Rochester Hills) conducts all of the video arraignments for the 52nd District Court and the arraignments for most, but not all, of the other District Courts in Oakland County.9 Pretrial Services is not scheduled on weekends. During weekends, after completion of the necessary paperwork by the inmate, inmates are brought from the booking holding cell area to the video arraignment room by the police department which arrested and brought the inmate to the OCJ. For example, if Bloomfield Township brought the inmate to OCJ that weekend, a Bloomfield Township police officer must come to the OCJ to move the prisoner from the holding cell/booking area to the video arraignment room for the arraignment from the 52-3 District Court and then return the prisoner to the holding cell area. The OCJ video control room will place the inmate in front of the video camera and the 52-3 District Court will connect the Judge at that courthouse with the inmate in the OCJ video booth for the arraignment. 10

Renovation of the Arraignment Room and Proposed New Video Arraignment Process

In this section the County will first discuss the pilot arraignment runs using arraignment only attorneys that involved attorney defendant interviews and the appearance of the arraignment only attorney at the arraignment. The County will then discuss the renovations to the video arraignment room necessary to efficiently and cost effectively conduct the video arraignments under Standard 4. Finally, the County will describe the new proposed arraignment process utilizing the renovated video arraignment room.

The OCJ Pilot Arraignment Runs

9 Weekend arraignments are scheduled from 9:00am-1:00pm on Saturday and Sunday and conducted for the 44th (Royal Oak), 45th (Oak Park), 48th (Bloomfield), 50th (Pontiac) and 51st (Waterford) District Courts. The 46th (Southfield), 43rd (Ferndale, Hazel Park, and Madison Heights) and 47th (Farmington) District Courts have their own weekend arraignment procedures. 10 Holiday arraignments will be handled as follows. For holidays falling on a weekend the weekend arraignment procedure will be followed. For holidays falling on Monday-Friday, only emergency arraignments will be conducted as determined on a case by case basis.

26

Oakland County conducted two pilot runs using arraignment only attorneys and the current video arraignment room. A diagram of the current video arraignment room is provided in the Cost Analysis at page 10.

The first pilot run was on Wednesday, August 30, 2017, which the County Administration thought would be a slow day. There were only 32 arraignments that day (eight less than the average day). We utilized three experienced attorneys to function as arraignment only attorneys and had one additional Deputy available to move inmates. The County was able to complete the attorney interviews and the arraignments at 2:15pm the normal completion time but with fewer arraignments on average than the expected normal number. The shortest interview took eight minutes and the longest was 24 minutes (potentially unruly inmate which happens periodically). The arraignment room was cramped and hot with defendants and three arraignment attorneys. It was also noisy with video arraignments occurring as well as defendant/attorney interviews. There was no privacy for interviews. The process was inefficient.

The second pilot run was on Tuesday, September 5, 2017, the day after the Labor Day weekend. The County anticipated 60-65 arraignments but had only 46 arraignments that day. The County also had four experienced defense attorneys present for the arraignments and two additional Deputies. The arraignments concluded at 3:15pm, one hour longer than our usual ending time. Arraignments started out slowly. The 9:00a.m. Pontiac start time was moved to 10:00 a.m. The shortest interview took 6 minutes and the longest 15 minutes. At one point, there were six inmates in the waiting room with two attorneys doing group interviews and individual interviews. Two other male inmates were standing and three others had to be moved to the clinic to wait. The temperature in the room was stifling. The room was noisy and interfered with arraignments and interviews. The odors were at one point very unpleasant and included an inmate who defecated in his pants and wiped a small portion on a door knob of one of the video arraignment booth doors. Another young female defendant became upset when her second arraignment at a different District Court could not be completed and she was required to stay in jail another day. While she was not unruly, she was emotionally upset and crying. In these tight, noisy, hot quarters she was a distraction until she could be moved back to a holding cell. The process was inefficient, but still preferable to the only other alternative of physically moving the defendants from the OCJ via bus to the District Courts and potentially back again.

Renovations to Video Arraignment Area

It is clear that the current video arraignment room in the OCJ is unsuitable. See Cost Analysis at page 10 for a diagram of the current video arraignment room; compare to proposed video arraignment room shown on page 11 of the Cost Analysis.

The County will need attorney meeting rooms, two holding cells (one male, one female), one additional video booth and camera, some upgrades to video equipment, and additional space in the video control room, particularly considering the second pilot had only half the number of arraignments seen at the other post-holiday periods. Further, the arraignment function now contemplated by Standard 4 will require additional space to ensure that the Standards are met, to

27

retain defense attorneys who are willing to work under these conditions, and to ensure that the defendants’ rights are respected as outlined under the indigent defense legislation.

The facility renovation section of the Cost Analysis contains a layout of the new video arraignment room for the OCJ (see Cost Analysis at page 11), where we have three confidential attorney interview rooms11 and four video booths including one that meets ADA standards. The revised space includes a separate holding area for male inmates and female inmates, an expanded video control room, doors and soundproofing for all video booths, and an ADA compliant video booth. 12

In regard to the renovation of the video arraignment room, the work must be done on the afternoon shift after video arraignment closes for the day and on weekends after the video arraignments are done for the day. The County cannot stop video arraignments, because transporting prisoners to the District Courts from the OCJ will be extremely costly. Accordingly, renovation costs will be increased for the special shift work. Further, the renovation work may take longer due to the need to make the room available for arraignments the next day. See also footnote 1 on page 5. See Cost Analysis at page 1, and pages 8 to 12.

The consequences of failing to renovate the video arraignment room are far reaching. Inmates cannot be interviewed and arraigned efficiently and timely in the existing video room and this will cause delays that will affect the entire system from the video arraignment room to the District Courts. There will be overtime costs for the Deputies who will be assigned to the video arraignment room every weekday and the 3 Deputies assigned every Saturday and Sunday (assuming no renovations). Even two hours of overtime per Deputy twice per week will impact in the County budget considerably. Further, if renovations are not made the County will need to assign three (3) more Deputies to the video arraignment room at a significant cost. With renovations the County believes that only one (1) more Deputy will be necessary. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

The delays caused by the failure to renovate will also affect arraignment only attorneys who accepted these assignments on a flat fee basis and will affect inmates who may be required to remain in the OCJ another day at taxpayers’ expense and at considerable inconvenience and difficulty for the inmate.

District Courts also will be impacted by the failure to renovate when they are unable to complete arraignments on time or are required to reset arraignment schedules. It is not just a single District Court that will be affected but the entire morning or afternoon schedule. Further, the District Courts have their own overtime issues and issues with Magistrates most of whom are part-time employees who have limited work hours. For example, the Magistrates who work in the 52nd District Courts are limited to 1000 hours per year, so that they do not become eligible for fringe benefits. If they exceed the 1000 hour elimination they may become eligible for benefits which will increase costs significantly. The District Courts also have the same defendant and attorney issues noted above.

Furthermore, the Sheriff is concerned about security issues. A video arraignment room that is overcrowded, noisy, and hot is difficult to secure and may result in incidents between inmates and 11 One of the video booths can be used as an attorney interview room if necessary. 12 The architectural and engineering costs for the renovation projects are set forth in the County’s Compliance Plan Development Costs. If not granted as part of those costs then they must be added to the County’s Facilities Renovation Costs which are part of the Cost Analysis.

28

between inmates and attorneys and/or Deputies. Difficult conditions breeds poor conduct. Accordingly, the Sheriff will be reluctant to allow attorney/inmate interviews in the current video arraignment room.

New Proposed Weekday Video Arraignment Process- OCJ

As part of the proposed new arraignment process the County anticipates starting video arraignments one half hour earlier at 8:30am for the 50th District Court (Pontiac)13and will have employees from Pretrial Services at the OCJ at 7:00am or earlier to start the arraignment process. While inmates are in the booking/holding cell area, they will be given an Advice of Rights, Petition for a Court Appointed Attorney, and Consent for Arraignment-Only Attorney and will be instructed to complete these forms.

When inmates are brought to the video arraignment room they will be placed in one of the holding cells adjacent to the video arraignment room (one for males and one for females). They will be called out to move to one of the three confidential attorney offices where they will meet with an arraignment only attorney who will review with them the Consent for Arraignment Only Attorney. If they sign the form, they will then be interviewed by an arraignment only attorney and prepared for their arraignment. OCJ Deputies will send the completed forms via facsimile or scanned via email to the District Court. Once inmates have been interviewed they will then wait in one of the two holding cell to be arraigned by video after all inmate interviews for that District Court have been completed. This process will be repeated for all District Courts that have arraignments that morning and then repeated again for afternoon arraignments.

The importance of the renovations to the video arraignment room cannot be overemphasized. Without these renovations the system will not function properly costing Oakland County significant overtime and other costs and will result in defendants being denied a timely and proper arraignment. See Introduction to Compliance Plan.

Furthermore, the County is not requesting a new jail or substantial remodeling of the OCJ. The County’s video room renovation request is aimed solely at the OCJ video arraignment room and no more. It is also directly related to Standard 4, Counsel at First Appearance. Absent Standards 2 and 4, no renovations would be undertaken by the County.

New Proposed Weekend Video Arraignment Process- OCJ

13 Some District Courts (e.g. the 52nd District Court) utilize part-time Magistrates who are not eligible for fringe benefits. These District Courts cannot start arraignments utilizing Magistrates earlier or the Magistrates will exceed the allocated hours and may become fringe benefit eligible which will affect court budgets. We are adding one more part-time non-eligible Magistrate to avoid a Magistrate becoming eligible for full-time benefits. See personnel section of the Cost Analysis.

29

Weekend arraignments will follow the same basic procedure as weekday arraignments including scheduling Pretrial Services on weekends. Male and female inmates will complete paperwork as previously described and will then be moved to one or the holding cells. When attorney/defendant interviews are complete, the 52-3 District Court will connect with the OCJ video arraignment room for the arraignments. With the introduction of attorneys in the OCJ for weekend arraignments, the OCJ cannot have outside police officers in the OCJ escorting and waiting for inmates as there are too many bodies to control in too small a space and it would create confusion and risk pose security issues. The County will need additional Deputies to escort the inmates from the holding cells to the arraignment area, wait for them to be interviewed and arraigned and then return them to the holding cell area.

The arraignment only attorney at the OCJ will also be required to assist with arraignments from police department lock-ups by interviewing via video (from one of the OCJ video booths) those defendants in police department lock-ups within the jurisdiction of the 52nd District Court because there is no one else that can do these interviews (the courthouses are closed and the County cannot send an attorney to the police lock-ups). After completion of interviews, the arraignments will occur with the attorney by video from the OCJ, the defendant by video from the police lock-up and the Judge in the 52-3 District Court.

Video Arraignments from Police Department Lock-ups

Background

The following police departments conduct arraignments from their lock-ups with their respective 52nd District Court:

• 52-1 DC (Novi) for Novi, Milford, and Wixom • 52-2 DC (Clarkston) for White Lake Township and Holly • 52-3 DC (Rochester Hills) for the Rochester City lock-up and for the weekend arraignments

from all of the above police department lock-ups as well as from the Troy Police Department

• 52-4 DC (Troy) weekend arraignments only through 52-3 District Court Current Weekday and Weekend Video Arraignment Procedure-Police Department Lock-ups

Currently weekday arraignments from police department lock-ups are managed by the District Court. The District Court schedules these arraignments with the police department lock-ups after the inmate paperwork has been received from the police departments. The District Court connects the Judge at the District Courthouse with the defendant in the lock-up.

For weekend arraignments, after the paperwork is completed and transmitted to the 52-3 District Court (Rochester Hills), the 52-3 District Court (Rochester Hills), which, as previously noted, conducts

30

all weekend arraignments for the 52nd District Court and many, but not all of the other County District Courts, schedules a time for the arraignment with the police department.

Proposed Renovations to Police Department Lock-ups

Four of the seven police department lock-ups will only need minimal work. They are: Troy, Wixom, Milford, and the City of Rochester which will require a white noise system, a kill switch for the audio recording, some acoustical panels, and furniture for the City of Rochester only. See facilities renovation section of Cost Analysis at pages 26 and 27. The remaining police department lock-ups need the following renovation work to upgrade their facilities, equipment and to provide confidentiality:

Novi Police Lock-up

The Novi Police Department lock-up will require installation of a video wall cabinet, a remote feed of the defendant for security purposes, sound proofing, a white noise system, and a kill switch to stop any audio recording. See facilities renovation section of Cost Analysis (Police Department lock-up subsection) pages 1, 26 to 27.

White Lake Township Police Lock-up

The White Lake Township Police Department police lock-up will need installation of a video wall cabinet, sound proofing, a white noise system, and a kill switch to stop any audio recording. See facilities renovation section of Cost Analysis (Police Department lock-up subsection) pages 1, 26 to 27.

Holly Police Department Lock-up

The Holly Police Department lock-up cannot be renovated. There is no space available. The video camera is next to the booking area, breathalyzer and detective area. Police Officers are in the area. The County will either utilize a modified attorney interview process where no interview questions are asked about the alleged acts committed by the defendant or the County may discontinue arraignments from the Holly Police Department lock-up.

Proposed Weekday Video Arraignments- Police Department Lock-ups

After completion of the renovation work the defendant(s) in a police department lock-up will be given the necessary paperwork by the police department and once it is completed it will be faxed or emailed to the applicable 52nd District Court where a court clerk will provide it to the Judge and to the arraignment only attorney. The arraignment only attorney assigned to that District Courthouse location will then go into a separate arraignment attorney interview room with video equipment and the District Court will place the attorney on camera with the defendant at the local police department lock-up. Video cameras are already in place at the police department lock-ups (two need upgrades or additional cameras) and four of them have confidential video arraignment booths that require only minimal upgrades. The County will purchase the video equipment for the four 52nd Courthouse

31

attorney rooms. See Cost Analysis at page 4. The arraignment only attorney will then complete all inmate video interviews at that police department lock-up.

Once interviews of all inmates from a police lock-up are complete for that District Court a time for the arraignments will be established. The attorney at the courthouse will proceed to the courtroom at the District Court that will hold the video arraignments and the District Court will then connect the courtroom (with the Judge and attorney) and the defendant at the police department lock-up for the arraignment. If the attorney cannot be on the same camera as the Judge/Magistrate, then three (3) screens will be utilized.

Proposed Weekend Arraignments- Police Department Lock-ups

Weekend arraignments from police lock-ups are more complicated because the courthouses is are closed. The arraignment only attorney in the OCJ is the only option to handle the inmate interviews and the arraignments from the police department lock-ups. Accordingly, the arraignment only attorney in the OCJ will, after receipt of the paperwork from the police department, interview the defendants in the various police department lock-ups by video from one of the OCJ video booths. After completion of the video interviews, the attorney in the OCJ and the Judge/Magistrate in the 52-3 District Court will connect by video with the defendant in the police department lock-up for the arraignment. Arraignments from police department lock-ups particularly on weekends will be a time consuming process.

There are no real alternatives to video interviews by the arraignment only attorneys. The County cannot send an attorney to each police department lock-up unless substantial costs are incurred.

Increased Labor Costs for Police Department Arraignments

There will also be additional police officers time necessary for four of the police departments to accommodate the interview between the arraignment only attorney and the defendants in the police department lock-ups. Bringing each defendant to the video room for the interview (Monday-Sunday) and returning them to the cell. The additional cost per year for the police departments is:

Novi $34,845

Milford $6036

Wixom $4609

Troy $50,609

For cost detail see Cost Analysis at page 5 and see written analysis from each police department attached hereto at Exhibit 7.

Issues Confronting the 52nd District Court as a Result of Standard 4

32

It is important to pause to review the complicated arraignment processes that will be created daily in the 52nd District Courts as a result of Standard 4, particularly the morning arraignments. The 52-1 District Court (Novi) will be used as an example. The 52-1 District Court will have arraignments from the OCJ. This requires that the inmates to be arraigned by the Novi District Court be moved to the OCJ video arraignment room, interviewed by the OCJ arraignment only attorney and a time set for the arraignment with the District Court Judge or Magistrate. At the time scheduled for the arraignment, the defendant must be moved from the holding cell in the arraignment area (see diagram of renovation of arraignment room) to the video booth with the arraignment only attorney for the arraignment.

That same morning, arraignments from the police department lock-ups will occur, where the arraignment only attorney at the Novi Courthouse must interview defendants in police lock-ups (for the 52-1 District Court this is Novi, Milford, and Wixom). After the interview a defendant will most likely be moved back to the cell. When the attorney in the courthouse has completed all defendant interviews the arraignments must be scheduled with the defendants in the lock-ups and the attorney and Judge in the courtroom. At the time set for the arraignment the arraignment only attorney must proceed to the courtroom, the defendant must be moved back to the police department video booth and then the defendant, the Judge and the arraignment only attorney must be video connected for the arraignment.

Simultaneously, there are arraignments of non-custody and in-custody defendants who appear in person at the Novi District Court. Some of these individuals will need to be interviewed by Pretrial Services and then interviewed by the same arraignment only attorney in the courthouse (who will also interview the prisoners in the police lock-ups) and once these interviews are completed, the arraignments must be scheduled with the Judge. There may also be walk-in arraignments.

Thus, there will be six separate steps/events occurring almost every morning:

1. Defendant interviews by arraignment only attorneys (and in some cases Pretrial Services) at the OCJ;

2. Defendant/attorney/Judge video arraignments between the OCJ and the courthouse; 3. Defendant-attorney interviews by video from police lock-ups; 4. Defendant/attorney/Judge arraignments between the police lock-up and the courthouse

(including moving the defendant back to the video booth if the arraignment does not occur immediately after the attorney interview);

5. In person defendant-attorney interviews in the courthouse of in-custody and non-custody defendants; and finally

6. Defendant/attorney/Judge arraignments in the courthouse of in-custody and non-custody defendants. Add to this walk-ins and the occasional in-custody defendant brought to the courthouse by the police or Sheriff’s Office, who must be interviewed by Pretrial Services, the arraignment only attorney and then arraigned before the court.

33

If one step/event in any of the arraignment processes is delayed or rescheduled, which can easily happen, all of the arraignments will need to be reset. In short, the County has moved from three arraignments/events (defendant in the court, defendant in the OCJ, and defendant in the police lock-up) involving one step/event each to three arraignments/events involving two separate steps/events each. This is significant and increases opportunities for disruption, delays, lock-downs, and any number of other events.

Further, these six separate events will now consume attorney time, more Judge/Magistrate time, and more court personnel time as well as additional paperwork. Further, District Courts may not be able to meet SCAO disposition guidelines.

Finally, the County has been advised by criminal defense attorneys that they will not advise their clients to plead guilty to a charge at arraignment because they will not have the discovery necessary to properly advise their clients which could raise legal malpractice issues. As a result of having far fewer guilty pleas at arraignments there will be an increased number of pretrials with the concomitant increase in paperwork (court clerk time), scheduling, indigent defense attorney time and court time all of which will be codified in future operating grant requests given the inability to assess the magnitude of this issue currently.

Additional OCJ Personnel and Arraignment Only Attorneys Needed at OCJ

Assuming the State provides the funding and the County is authorized to complete the renovations to the video arraignment room and attorneys are willing to work under these trying situations, the County will need the following arraignment only attorneys available at the OCJ:

• OCJ Arraignment Only Attorneys o Four attorneys on Mondays and the day after a holiday o Three attorneys Tuesday through Friday o Three attorneys on Saturday and two attorneys on Sunday

See contractual section of Cost Analysis at page 3.

• Corrections Deputy I One more Corrections Deputy I if renovations14 are made (assist in prisoner movement, guard prisoners). This would provide weekday and weekend coverage. See Cost Analysis at page 2. Three more Corrections Deputy I if no renovations are made (to assist in prisoner movement, guard prisoners, move prisoners to confidential space outside the video arraignment room). However, since the Regional Representative is recommending that the requested renovations should be made this alternative cost has not been placed in our Cost Analysis. The County reserves the right to seek these costs if the renovations are not

14 This assumes adequate renovations as described earlier.

34

ultimately approved. Accordingly, failure to make the renovation would result in two more permanent Corrections Deputy I positions at a total annual cost of $206,572.

• Corrections Deputy I Overtime needed during the six month OCJ video arraignment room renovations. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

• Corrections Deputy I Overtime needed for expected delays in the arraignment process. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

• Two Community Corrections Specialist II (Pretrial Services) Community Corrections will need two additional staff members regardless of renovations (for early weekday start time and weekend coverage). Pretrial Services has staff physically assigned in eleven of the fourteen Oakland County District Courts. The remaining three courts receive bail reports from Community Corrections, but are not able to accommodate having Oakland County staff on site. There are three staff assigned to the OCJ. Staff interview individuals who are in custody at police stations, local lock-ups or being held at the OCJ. Staff also runs LEIN, information, contact references and score the Praxis pretrial risk assessment tool. All this information is compiled into a written report and presented to the court by staff at the individual’s arraignment. Pretrial services currently operates Monday through Friday. In order to expand to weekends and to start staff weekdays at 7:00am or earlier, an additional two (2) FTE Community Corrections staff are needed. This is necessary not only to cover the additional 1,000 reports expected to be completed over a year but also to properly staff the office. Individuals arraigned on the weekends should have the same services as those arraigned during the week. Existing staff are already at capacity and cannot absorb the additional workload. See personnel section of Cost Analysis at page 2.

Additional Circuit Court Personnel15

The County will need the following additional Circuit Court personnel:

• Chief Attorney MIDC The person in this position will provide overall management for the County indigent defense system. At some point in the future the County will need to hire an attorney to manage and provide overall supervision for the County’s indigent defense system. See

15 Another Circuit Court Records Specialist and management/professional staff person will be necessary if the County’s CLE proposal is not approved as written.

35

Cost Analysis at page 2. When Standard 5 is implemented this position will be moved from a Circuit Court position to a County administrative position.

• One Circuit Court MIDC/Administrative Supervisor Under general supervision, plans, assigns, directs, reviews and coordinates the work of lower level clerical employees assigned to the Indigent Defense Division. Supervises the receiving, reviewing, processing, filing, and maintenance of division documents, reports, records, and daily transactions. Oversees state mandates and judicial timelines associated with appointments of attorneys for indigent parties for cases in the Circuit and District Courts. Processes requests or orders for appointments by selecting from an appropriate group of qualified attorneys for case type, giving special consideration to prior appointment history, specific language or similar skilled required, availability within the time constraints, and other relevant factors. Oversees the review and processing of vouchers authorizing payment for indigent defense services for the Circuit and District Courts. Performs liaison duties between lower level clerical employees and indigent defense administrative personnel. Utilizes current countywide and/or department specific software to complete assignments. When Standard 5 is implemented this position will most likely be moved from a Circuit Court position to a County administrative position. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

• One Account Clerk II (Circuit Court) :

o An Account Clerk II is needed to due to the workload associated with processing Court Appointed Attorney Vouchers.

o All vouchers are processed and paid according to the appropriate fee schedule. To process each voucher, the Account Clerk II verifies everything the attorney lists on the voucher. The Account Clerk II is responsible for ensuring that the voucher is billed correctly and for the appropriate amounts. All information is verified through a Circuit Court or District Court database.

o Once everything on the attorney voucher has been verified, the fee schedule is applied to determine the appropriate payment. The Account Clerk II puts the amount to be paid on the voucher, stamps or signs the Judges name, initials the voucher, dates it and stamps it with the appropriate account string. Each different case type has a different account string. The Account Clerk II then posts the voucher information and payment amount in an access database. The database is used for reporting purposes. The voucher is then copied and sent to Fiscal Services, Reimbursement and the Clerk’s Office. Fiscal Services then takes care of entering the payment information into PeopleSoft. When Standard 5 is implemented this position will most likely be moved from a Circuit Court position to a County administrative position. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

Oakland County Fiscal Services Division Personnel Needed

36

• One Account Clerk II for Fiscal Services Division of County Administration The majority of the duties require the work of an Account Clerk II. In addition, there would be additional current staff including Accountants, Financial Analysts, and Supervisors to provide assistance and oversight. Existing staff are already at capacity and cannot absorb all of the anticipated workload. Below are some general duties that would be needed for MIDC Standards 1-4. Develop and maintain a system to gather and track all arraignment activity for billing the non-52 DCs courts

o Gather arraignment information daily or weekly by unique/identifiable information for billing purposes.

o Maintain billing database and/or use Projects module in Financials system for detailed billing purposes.

o Billing non-52nd courts on a monthly basis providing detailed info for non-52nd District Court to verify billings.

o Handle all billing inquiries and collection efforts. o Estimated 12,000 plus arraignment billings per year to 10 non-52nd District Courts.

Payment processing for additional defense attorney payments

o Increased volume with the additional arraignment only attorneys as well as initial interview attorneys (about $2M in additional expenditures per year based on the cost analysis ($635K+$1.0M+ $398K)).

o Processing payments in financial system for other contracted services, (anticipated increase in expert and investigator expenditures, and anticipate overall increase in defense counsel use).

MIDC grant reporting requirements

o Assist with all MIDC grant fund accounting tasks. o MIDC financial reporting. o Organizing and filing of documents/reports. o Obtaining required signatures. o Follow up to questions/issues as needed.

See Cost Analysis page 2.

Additional District Court Personnel and District Court Arraignment Only Attorneys

37

• Four District Court Clerks IIs (one for each Courthouse) to handle increased paperwork, scheduling, pretrials, and other matters. The County initially requested two additional Court Clerks per District Court in its first and second Compliance Plans. After meeting with the County’s MIDC Representative, the County will defer its request for the second clerk per District Court until the County addresses the implementation of Standard 5.

Four additional FTE District Court Clerk II positions, one for each division of the 52nd District Courts (Novi, Clarkston, Rochester Hills, Troy), are being requested due to the workload demand associated with the compliance with the MIDC Act. The existing staff at each of the 52nd District Courts are already at capacity and cannot absorb all of the anticipated workload associated with processing, scheduling, pretrials and other related matters. Further, after implementation of Standard 5, these Clerk(s) positions will most likely be moved from a District Court position(s) to a County administrative position(s). Below are some general duties that the District Court Clerk’s II would perform.

o Felony and Misdemeanor Arraignment only – not in custody or in custody at

the court. - Determine if an arraignment only attorney is needed. - Completes all case information and verify that the following forms were

completed and signed: Arraignment Attorney Only Consent, Indigent Request for Attorney, and the DC213 Advice of Rights.

- After the paperwork and files are complete, all information must be entered into JIS using the appropriate chronological JIS code.

o Felony and Misdemeanor Arraignment only – in custody defendants arraigned by OakVideo from the OCJ or police lock-up - The police department or OCJ will be responsible for having the defendant

fill out all of the necessary forms and scanning them over to the appropriate court.

- Complete all case information and verify that the following forms were completed and signed: Arraignment Attorney Only Consent, Indigent Request for Attorney, and the DC213 Advice of Rights.

- After the paperwork and files are complete, all information must be entered into JIS using the appropriate chronological JIS code.

o Felony cases post arraignment

38

- Completes all case information and verify that the following forms were completed and signed: Arraignment Attorney Only Consent, Indigent Request for Attorney, and the DC213 Advice of Rights.

- After verifying information and forms, they will fax the request to the Circuit Court Administration.

- After the paperwork and files are complete, all information must be entered into JIS using the appropriate chronological JIS code.

o Misdemeanor cases post arraignment - Verifies that the defendant still desires a Court Appointed Attorney and

insures all forms are complete and signed from the arraignment process. - The file is given to the clerk who is responsible for assigning the Court

Appointed Attorney, which must be done within 24 hours. They contact the next available Court Appointed Attorney via phone, advise the attorney a case has been assigned and send them an e-mail, which includes the MC 222 and the Initial Client Intake Interview Form. They will receive an e-mail from the Court Appointed Attorney once contact has been made and the Initial Client Intake Interview form has been completed.

- After the paperwork and files are complete, all information must be entered into JIS using the appropriate chronological JIS code. The case will be placed on a tickler system to follow up on compliance. It will be removed from the tickler system once the form is received back from the attorney. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

• District Court Clerk Weekend Overtime

Eight overtime hours per week, divided amongst two District Court Clerk II positions, are also requested due to the workload demand associated with weekend arraignments at the Rochester Hills Court. A total of 416 overtime hours (8 hours per weekend). With the additional time necessary for weekend arraignments due to attorney interviews, both in the OCJ and between the attorney in the OCJ and the defendants in police department lock-ups and with the three screen arraignments between the Court in Rochester Hills, the attorney in the OCJ and the defendant in the police lock-up, the Rochester District Court will have longer hours and more work. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

• District Court Arraignment Only Attorneys Two (2) arraignment only attorneys every weekday for the 52-1 (Novi) and three (3) arraignment only attorneys for the 52-3 (Rochester Hills) District Courts. One arraignment only attorney each weekday for the

39

52-2 District Court (Clarkston) and the 52-4 District Court (Troy). See Cost Analysis at page 1 and page 3.

• Increased Magistrate Hours

Additional Part-Time Non-Eligible Employee (PTNE) Magistrate hours (additional 1,872 hours for all four divisions of the 52nd District Courts). The 52nd District Courts only employ part-time Magistrates, who are limited to working 1000 hours each year or they will become eligible for fringe benefits (retirement, healthcare, disability, and life insurance, etc.) should they exceed the 1000 hour limitation. Three of the four courts do not have Magistrates at their Court five days a week. The Court’s Judges are working at capacity and cannot absorb any additional arraignment workload. Therefore, additional Magistrate hours will be critical. The issue with the Magistrates and the need for additional Magistrate work hours is not based on the number of arraignments. While the number of arraignments is increasing, Standard 4 will not increase that number beyond its normal yearly increase. Instead, in examining this issue, we need to focus on the Oakland County arraignment process and the events in that process. What will increase as a result of Standard 4 is the amount of time the arraignment process will take to complete because Standard 4 adds an additional event to the process (the attorney interview). For example, in the OCJ there were 12,200 arraignments in 2017. This is 12,200 separate events i.e. placing the prisoner before the camera for the video arraignment with the Judge 12,200 times. When Standard 4 becomes effective, we will add an event. Prisoners will come from the cell area to the arraignment room and be interviewed by an attorney and then placed in a holding cell. When the attorney has completed a group of prisoner interviews, the defendant and the attorney will appear on camera for the video arraignment with the court. The attorney interview is a separate additional event. Standard 4 turns 12,200 events into 24,400 events. The same is true for the 52nd District Courts. The arraignment process which was comprised of one event, e.g. 20-40 arraignments each day, has now become 40-80 events, i.e. an attorney interview and an arraignment. Moreover, part of the new elongated arraignment process will be complicated to coordinate. That is the arraignments from the police lock-ups where there must be a video interview between the attorney in the courthouse and the defendant in the lock-up, then the video arraignment. Standard 4 elongates the arraignment process by adding an additional separate event, the attorney interview. This new arraignment process will impact court scheduling, will cause delays and will create down time for the Magistrate or Judge (only Novi has a Magistrate five days per week). In this regard and as set forth on pages 29 to 33, the arraignment only attorney

40

in the District Court will have the following events happening every day: interviews of non-custody defendants whose appearance is set for that day; interviews of walk-in defendants who failed to appear as scheduled; interviews of in-custody defendants; and video interviews of defendants in police lock-ups. In addition, to arraigning the foregoing defendants, the Judge or Magistrate will be arraigning defendants from the OCJ. This will exacerbate any other problems that occur from lock-downs in the cell area, fights, medical emergencies, and any other occurrences in the cell area or courthouse. It will also exacerbate any problems caused by issues within the electronic video system. These incidents, when they occur, will further elongate the arraignment process. The County’s request for additional Magistrate hours is very modest for a system as large as Oakland County’s system. The requested additional Magistrate hours are: o sixteen hours per week at 52-2 Clarkston District Court, o eight hours per week at 52-3 Rochester District Court, o eight hours per week at 52-4 Troy District Court o eight hours per week for weekend arraignments at 52-3 Rochester District Court. See Cost Analysis at page 2. At the Clarkston Courthouse a Magistrate is currently in the Courthouse three days per week (24 hours). The County needs the Magistrate present five days per week or an additional sixteen hours per week. For the Rochester and Troy District Courts there is a Magistrate present four days a week (32 hours) and the County needs the Magistrate present five days per week (40 hours). The County is requesting eight additional hours of Magistrate time for weekends at the Rochester Court. Currently the Court is working 9:00am to 1:00pm Saturday and Sunday. The County needs to increase the court hours to 8:00am to 4:00pm on weekends as a result of the additional step in the arraignment process required by Standard 4 (the attorney interview). The weekend arraignment process is already complex and will become increasingly complex with OCJ attorneys interviewing prisoners at the OCJ and appearing at video arraignments with them as well as interviewing prisoners in local police lock-ups and appearing at three screen video arraignments with them. It will be difficult to complete the arraignment process on weekends if there is only four hours of Magistrate time on Saturday and Sunday.

• Additional Clarkston Courthouse Deputy

41

See supra at pages 16 to 18 for a description of the need for this Deputy. See Cost Analysis at page 2.

Local Police Department Overtime Hours Additional straight time hours and overtime hours for Police Departments (Novi, Wixom, Milford, and Troy) for prisoner movement for video interviews with the arraignment only attorney. See Cost Analysis at page 5, see supra at page 31 and see Exhibit 7 hereto.

Hospital Arraignments

An infrequent, but complicating factor, are hospital arraignments. At the present time we are conducting the following number of hospital arraignments:

OCJ: 12-18 per year

52-1 (Novi): 12-18 per year

52-2 (Clarkston): 1-3 per year

52-3 (Rochester): 1-3 per year

52-4 (Troy): 2-3 per year

Total: 28-45 per year

Hospital arraignments currently require a Judge/Magistrate to go to the hospital with a court reporter and conduct an arraignment. Alternatively, this is done by video, but this is complicated because the IT Department must schedule a technician to go to the hospital room with video equipment and then connect with the District Court for the arraignment.

With the implementation of Standard 4, hospital arraignments will require that an attorney interview the hospitalized defendants prior to the arraignment. The County will have the attorney in the District Court proceed to the hospital room followed by the Judge/Magistrate and court reporter to conduct the arraignment. Where the OCJ is involved we will have to determine procedures on a case by case basis, but would most likely handle these arraignments with the OCJ arraignment only attorney (from the OCJ), Judge/Magistrate and court reporter from the appropriate court, preceding to the hospital.

As far as cost is concerned, the Judge/Magistrate and court reporter are already performing these duties. The only change will be providing for the attorney interview prior to the hospital arraignment. The County will try to conduct these attorney conferences/arraignments during the lunch period or at the end of the day, most likely at the end of the day.

At this time, we are estimating 28-45 hospital arraignments a year and an additional cost of $75 per hospital arraignment for the designated arraignment only attorney that day if the arraignment is at the of the day. Some of the arraignments can be done as part of the arraignment only attorney’s regular day (i.e. lunch period). Accordingly, the County believes it will only need to pay an attorney for about 75% of the hospital arraignments. Averaging this cost (75% of 36 hospital arraignments= 27

42

arraignments x $75 equals $2025). If we are required to provide a video arraignment the cost would be $441 per arraignment (3 hours at $147 per hour). Assuming five video arraignments per year (5 x $441), this equals $2205 for a total cost of $4230 for hospital arraignments. The County is increasing this cost to $4500 per year for hospital arraignments.

Liability Insurance for Oakland County Funding Unit

In its first and second Compliance Plans the County requested funds for an insurance policy covering the County in the event the County was sued by an indigent defendant or an attorney who performs indigent defense work (e.g. attorney sues the County for failure to place him/her on a list of attorneys for selection, removes him/her from such list, etc.).

The County will withdraw this request for now but will reassert it in its Compliance Plan for Standards 5-8, in particular in relation to Standard 5.

Training

The County will need to conduct training classes that will be one to two hours for, inter alia, the following purposes:

• Use of video equipment and/or use of updates to the equipment • District Court arraignment procedures and Standard 4 • Procedures for handling and filing paperwork

The County will need to train the following groups: Circuit Court and District Court clerks, Deputies in the OCJ, arraignment only attorneys, District Court Judges and Magistrates and IT/CLEMIS personnel.

The cost for the training ($7350) is included in the technology cost section of the Cost Analysis at page 4.

Technology Requirements

With increased usage, three and possibly four screens, more connections from more locations, the video conferencing system must be enhanced and made more secure with improved backup. Further, the video conferencing system will need programming including a technology based scheduling system. These enhancements and the rationale for them are summarized below. The costs are set forth in more detail in the technology section of the Cost Analysis.

More specifically, the County needs the following technology improvements and related matters:

43

• Infrastructure: The increased use of the video conferencing system will also increase the opportunities for system failures. Accordingly, it is imperative the system become as fail safe as possible. If the system were to fail, all fourteen courthouses and six police lock-ups will lose the ability to arraign many defendants. The County cannot transport prisoners to court because it lacks buses and Deputies to do so.

As part of its technology costs, the County set forth the purchase of a PolyCom RMX1830 Redundancy Bridge in the County’s first and second Compliance Plans. Per the meeting with our MIDC Representative this will be deferred to year 2.

• Development: The County also needs to provide for technology development and has set forth these programs in its technology section of the Cost Analysis outlining these development programs. This includes a scheduling system to assist in scheduling multiple attorneys and courts with potentially multiple defendant holding locations, a document imaging management system, and IT hours to enhance multiple screen usage, and system maintenance. Additional customer support and planned maintenance to cover additional system use are also necessary and are set forth in the technology cost section.

• Hardware: Additional hardware must be purchased. The County needs a video wall unit for the OCJ. This is similar to hardware required for the other remote lock-ups, but that hardware is included in their line items, not line items for the central county campus.

• Software: This includes line items for purchased software licenses from the document imaging and management system. This also includes $29,400 for programming and other work with the JIS system. If all programming and related changes to the JIS system will be made by and paid for by the State or SCAO, the estimated cost of $29,400 can be eliminated.

• Training: Once the system enhancements are completed, a one-two hour training program will be developed for Judges, Magistrates, public defenders, Sheriff Office personnel, court personnel and certain IT personnel. The cost is projected to be $7350. It is essential that everyone becomes proficient concerning the enhanced video conferencing system.

See technology section of Cost Analysis at page 4. Additional information can be provided as needed by the MIDC.

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys at Arraignments

Oakland County understands that the MIDC voted by a vote of 10-3 to reject MIDC grant funds for Prosecutor costs. While the County recognizes this, the County is continuing to include these costs in its Plan to preserve the issue for decision by the courts.

Oakland County Administration and the Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office support the proposition that if all defendants will have representation at first arraignments, the victims of crime and the People of Oakland County must also have representation at these proceedings. Often defendants are dangerous criminals and/or have lengthy criminal records with a history of violent crimes. The

44

Victims/People should have representation at these hearings to make sure that the arraigning Judge hears all the facts.

In creating and approving Standard 4- Counsel at First Appearance and Other Critical Stages, LARA and the MIDC created a new constitutional right to counsel at arraignment and thus made the arraignment a critical stage. 16 A “critical stage” by definition, is an adversarial judicial proceeding. Rothgery v. Gillespie County, 554 U.S. 191, 212 (2008). Because LARA and the MIDC made the arraignment a critical stage, prosecutors must be present for the arraignment to be legally conducted. A judge cannot engage in ex parte communications with the defense attorneys during an arraignment without the presence of assistant prosecuting attorneys. Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct 3(A)(4). The indigent defense counsel is not allowed to communicate ex parte with a judge during a pending matter and cannot make bond arguments during an adversarial judicial proceeding without opposing counsel present. Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 3.5(a) – (b).

In Grievance Adm’r v Lopatin, 462 Mich 235, 262 (2000), the Michigan Supreme Court discussed the danger of ex parte communications:

Ex parte communications deprive the absent party of the right to respond and be heard. They suggest bias or partiality on the part of the judge. Ex parte conversations or correspondence can be misleading; the information given to the judge ‘may be incomplete or inaccurate, the problem can be incorrectly state’. At the very least, participation in ex parte communications will expose the judge to one-sided argumentation, which carries the attendant risk of an erroneous ruling on the law or facts. At worst, ex parte communication is an invitation to improper influence if not outright corruption” [Quoting Shaman, Lubet & Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics(3d ed), § 5.01, pp 159-160] (emphasis added).

MIDC Standard 4 requires indigent defense counsel to argue for bond and pretrial release. Prosecutors have the right to respond and argue if necessary that freeing the defendant would endanger the public. Because neither the trial court or defense counsel can engage in ex parte communication during an adversarial proceeding, MIDC is required to cover the additional costs funding units will require to provide assistant prosecutors at all arraignments in order for arraignments to be lawfully conducted.

To fulfill its responsibilities, the Oakland County Prosecutor will need the following personnel:

1. 14 additional APA II positions to provide the same service to all the district courts throughout Oakland County.

2. Additional duty weekend prosecutor pay for the Arraignment Prosecutor. 3. 4 secure data delivery systems to transmit basic case information for the arraignments in

the County District Courts; 14 data delivery systems if expanded countywide.

16 The MIDC has explained that Standard 4 “addresses an indigent defendant’s right to counsel at every court appearance.” See MIDC Standard 4 Comment 1 (emphasis added). Oakland County continues to maintain that LARA and the MIDC do not have the constitutional or statutory authority to create a right to counsel at arraignment and make the arraignment a critical stage. By requesting Prosecutor’s Office staff positions in its Compliance Plan, Oakland County does not waive the constitutional and statutory issues raised by Oakland County in Oakland County v. State of Michigan et al, COA Case No. 341172.

45

4. 2 additional scanners/copiers to speed up discovery process. 5. 4 Technical Assistant positions 6. 1 Chief Prosecutor- MIDC 7. 4 Office Assistant II positions 8. In order to redact the information for discovery purposes on a more expedited basis for

just the county district courts, we will need not only the development of a system by the Department of Information Technology (I.T.) and supporting hardware.

It is important to note that this request seeks grant money for Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys at all of the District Courts in Oakland County not just the 52nd District Court.

We also note that the appearance of Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys at arraignments will further complicate the arraignment process.

See Cost Analysis at page 2.

46

LOCAL SHARE CALCULATION

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is Oakland County’s Local Share Calculation, which has been signed by Lynn Sonkiss, the County’s Fiscal Services Officer.

52-1 District Court- NOVI

• Commerce Township

• Highland Township

• Lyon Township

• Milford Township

• Novi

• Novi Township

• South Lyon

• Village of Milford

• Village of Wolverine Lake

• Walled Lake

• Wixom

52-2 District Court- Clarkston

• Brandon Township

• Clarkston

• Holly Township

• Groveland Township

• Independence Township

• Rose Township

• Springfield Township

• White Lake Township

• Village of Holly

• Village of Ortonville

52-3 District Court-Rochester

• Addison Township

• Auburn Hills

• Lake Angelus

• Oakland Township

• Orion Township

• Oxford Township

• Rochester

• Rochester Hills

• Village of Lake Orion

• Village of Leonard

• Village of Oxford

52-4 District Court- Troy

• Troy

• Clawson

STATE OF MICHIGAN 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT

PLAN FOR APPOINTING LAWYERS TO REPRESENT

INDIGENT DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER 2014-07

I. SCOPE

This administrative order is issued in accordance with Michigan Court Rule 8.123, and is

effective on April 1. The purpose of this order, in accordance with the Court’s obligations to criminal defendants under US Const, Am VI and Const 1963, art. I, § 20, is to set forth a plan for selecting, appointing, and compensating lawyers to represent indigent defendants in criminal cases in the Civil/Criminal Division of the 6th Judicial Circuit Court. The Circuit Court Administrator will be responsible for administration of this plan. Administrative Order 2003-07 is rescinded.

II. CRIMINAL ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE

1. A ten member Criminal Assignment Committee, consisting of five judges from the 6th

Judicial Circuit Court selected by a method determined by the bench, and five representatives appointed by the President of the Oakland County Bar Association (OCBA), shall serve as a standing committee to determine the qualifications of attorneys applying to act as assigned counsel in criminal cases. Members of the Criminal Assignment Committee shall serve staggered two-year terms. Initially, two representatives appointed by the OCBA and two judges shall serve for a term expiring on September 1, 1997. Three representatives appointed by the OCBA and three judges shall serve for a term expiring on September 1, 1998. As set forth below, the Criminal Assignment Committee shall also be responsible for establishing the training and continuing legal education requirements for attorneys seeking to maintain their eligibility to serve as indigent defense counsel. The criteria, standards, and policies of the Criminal Assignment Committee shall be available for inspection at the OCBA offices, the office of the Court Administrator, and the Circuit Court’s website.

2. The Criminal Assignment Committee shall develop and produce a performance

survey to allow for feedback from the judiciary regarding assigned attorneys. The Criminal Assignment committee shall consider this feedback along with the attorney’s experience, participation in criminal law training programs, and other law-related criteria in determining the continued eligibility of attorneys to serve as assigned counsel for indigent defendants.

3. The Criminal Assignment Committee does not discriminate on the basis of race, age,

color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability or veteran status.

III. ELIGIBILITY TO SERVE AS ASSIGNED COUNSEL

1. As determined by the Criminal Assignment Committee, the eligibility of attorneys seeking to serve as indigent defense counsel shall be evaluated and classified in the following categories:

Category Description

1 Capital offenses – sentences with maximum of life imprisonment. 2 Major felony offenses – sentences in excess of five years’

imprisonment to less than life imprisonment and negligent homicide.

3 Felony offenses – sentences in excess of two years’ imprisonment up to and including five year’s imprisonment.

4 Felony/High Misdemeanor offenses – sentences up to and including two years’ imprisonment, except negligent homicide.

Category 1 attorneys are eligible to receive assignments in all categories. Attorneys in category 2 are also eligible to receive assignments in categories 3 and 4. Attorneys in category 3 are also eligible to receive assignments in category 4.

2. Eligibility to serve as assigned counsel shall be as follows:

a. Attorneys seeking to be initially qualified as assigned counsel must attend the

series of seminars sponsored by the OCBA Criminal Law Committee, or training at an equally recognized seminar (e.g. CDAM conferences, ICLE courses, NACDL seminars) as determined by the Criminal Assignment Committee. Applicants who qualify for placement in either Category 1 or 2 are not required to attend basic programs, but are required to participate in appropriate training and continuing legal education (CLE) programs. The training and legal education requirements are to be of the highest standards.

b. Attorneys seeking to be qualified as assigned counsel must submit a complete

application form to the Criminal Assignment Committee which will be available at the OCBA offices, the office of the Circuit Court Administrator, and the Circuit Court website.

c. Completed applications will be submitted to the Criminal Assignment Committee

at the Circuit Court Administrator’s office. The committee shall review the applications and determine the applicant’s qualifications to serve as assigned counsel in any one or all of the above categories of criminal cases.

d. Attorneys may be qualified to receive Category 3 and 4 appointments upon

1) completion of the training program set forth in paragraph a. above, and 2)

participation in the Criminal Mentor program or 3) as otherwise determined by the Criminal Assignment Committee.

e. Trial experience, seminar attendance, participation in the Criminal Mentor

program, second chair experience, and judicial feedback shall be among the criteria used in assigning counsel to specific categorical levels and in advancing counsel to the next category level.

f. An attorney may petition the Criminal Assignment Committee for reclassification

by submitting a written request to the Committee outlining the reasons for reclassification, including, but not limited to, increased experience, completion of various training programs, recommendation from judges and attorneys, second chair experience, and any other information relevant to an appropriate classification.

g. To remain eligible for the criminal assignment system roster, all attorneys must

annually present evidence of their completion of CLE approved by the Criminal Assignment Committee by December 31st. Attorneys who fail to submit CLE evidence by January 31st shall be automatically removed from the roster of appointed counsel. Attorneys may petition the Committee for reinstatement. The petition must include evidence of completion of CLE requirements for the previous year and the current year.

IV. SUSPENSION OR REMOVAL

An attorney’s appointment to the criminal assignment system roster is a privilege and not a right. An attorney on the criminal assignment system roster may be suspended and/or removed pursuant to the policies of the Criminal Assignment Committee.

V. PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTING COUNSEL

Upon receiving a request for appointment of counsel in Category 3 and 4 cases only, the Circuit Court Administrator or his/her designee shall refer to the list of attorneys eligible to handle the type of offense with which the defendant is charged. Upon confirming the availability of the next attorney on the list, notice of that appointment shall be submitted to the District Court in which the appointment has been requested as well as to the appointed attorney. Counsel shall be appointed in rotation according to the date of their last appointment. An attorney who is unavailable for an assignment shall not lose his/her place on the rotational list. After refusing a second appointment, the attorney shall lose his/her place and be moved to the bottom of the rotational list. The Circuit Court Administrator shall notify the Committee if an attorney chronically refuses assignments.

In unusual or extraordinary circumstances, the Circuit Court judge to whom a criminal

case has been assigned may appoint a lawyer to represent an indigent defendant outside of the

ordinary rotational system provided that the lawyer so appointed has otherwise been deemed eligible to serve as indigent defense counsel by the Criminal Assignment Committee.

Upon receiving a request for appointment of counsel in Category 1 and 2 cases, the Circuit

Court judge has the option of appointing an attorney to represent the indigent defendant from the list of attorneys eligible to handle the type of offense with which the defendant is charged or to request the Circuit Court Administrator or his/her designee to make the appointment in rotation from the designated Category 1 or 2 list.

Probation violations, infectious disease petitions, line-ups, emergency petitions,

extradition cases, and other similar miscellaneous matters are specifically excluded from the above-described rotational system.

VI. COMPENSATION

The attorney must submit a payment voucher to the Court Administrator’s office indicating the case type and services rendered within the time provided by 6th Judicial Circuit Court LCR 6.101(B). The attorney will be compensated pursuant to the 6th Judicial Circuit Court’s Appointed Attorney Fee Schedule. The fee schedule is available in the Court Administrator’s office and on the Circuit Court website.

VII. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS

The Circuit Court shall annually compile the following records: a. Number of appointments given to each attorney by the court, b. Number of appointments given to each attorney by each judge of the court, c. Total amount of public funds paid to each attorney by the court, and d. Total amount of public funds paid to each attorney for assignments by each judge of the

court.

These records will be maintained by the court pursuant to SCAO General Schedule 16, Record Retention Schedule for Michigan Trial Courts.

To protect the public’s confidence in the integrity of the criminal assignment procedure,

records shall be maintained by the Court Administrator and made available to the public upon request within a reasonable time. There will be no charge for the inspection of records; a reasonable fee will be charged for providing copies, pursuant to Michigan Court Rule 8.119 (J). The Circuit Court will annually report information regarding the appointment of counsel as required by MCR 8.123(F).

This plan shall be available in the office of the Circuit Court Administrator and on the

Circuit Court website.

VIII. IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE

Upon approval of the State Court Administrative Office, this administrative order shall be effective on April 1, 2014.

Administrative Order 2003-07 is hereby rescinded.

Hon. Nanci - Chief Circuit Judge

Date

NOTES:

This Administrative Order was amended to change the method by which complaints against court appointed counsel are handled and to confer upon the Criminal Assignment Committee the authority to suspend and/or remove att orne ys from the indigent defense roster for just cause as the Committee deems appropriate. Section IV. Approved by the Circuit Judges on April 1, 2014.

Defense Attorneys: ALL COURTS

* Indicates unknown years of experience, information not provided by Funding Unit or Court

Last Name First Name P Number Years of Experience Abdallah Zahna 81883 less than 2 Abdo Sherman M. 77605 * Acho Laurel B. 70836 2 or more Adams Charla 74863 2 or more Adams Robert 10045 2 or more Albertins Peter 48886 2 or more Alcendor Ayanna 79118 NO Allen John 42940 2 or more Allen Loren 46208 2 or more Ambrose Ronald D. 45504 2 or more Andrews Donald John II 48501 2 or more Andrieux Reginald 80354 No Experience Angott John 62985 2 or more Anstandig Ronald 30277 2 or more Antisdale Terri 55489 2 or more Archie Brooke 75744 * Arm Daniel 61807 2 or more Aronowitz Edmund unkn unkn Askew Lauren 79304 2 or more Atiya Shahad 80947 less than 2 Badalucco Andrea 69670 2 or more Bagdade Daniel J. 24698 2 or more Baggett-Hayes Earlene 40268 2 or more Bagley Dennis J. 36317 2 or more Bahoura Mike 80205 Less than 2yrs Baker Paul 35007 * Baldwin Michael S. 65417 2 or more Balian Michael 39972 2 or more Ballard Leonard 81245 2 or more Banks Darrell Jerome 40301 2 or more Bannister Jackson Lavonne 42804 * Barnes Mary 70970 2 or more Barnett Justin M. 61808 2 or more Barnwell William M. 79508 * Baron Dory A. 36714 2 or more Barr Stephanie 72074 * Barrett Malita L. 43238 2 or more

Bars Michael L. Bars 23926 2 or more Barsensas Matthew 74234 * Bastianelli Joseph 42806 2 or more Bates Daniel 324775 2 or more Bates Melonie 76080 2 or more Baunsoe Cecilia Quirindongo 68374 2 or more Beeghly Pamela N. 36231 2 or more Benavides Marcel S. 69562 2 or more Bennett Kelli Amber 69697 * Berman Ryan 65936 2 or more Bernier Joel 74226 * Berri Houda unkn less than 2 Beson Kathleen 78763 2 or more Bihar Roberto 76405 2 or more Black Justin 76000 2 or more Blaney Mary 72940 2 or more Boetteger Hillarie 62003 2 or more Bolling Bryan 65151 2 or more Boroja Daniel 77079 * Bowers Tanya 77416 2 or more Boyd Robert J. III 45554 2 or more Braxton Keefe 78985 * Brennan J. Patrick 37508 * Brent Daniel P. 79240 2 or more Brent Jason M. 76821 2 or more Broadrick Kristy 79443 2 or more Brown Christopher 71665 2 or more Brown Kimberly T. 41835 2 or more Buehner Jeffrey 54871 2 or more Burgess Duncan 72378 * Burns Timothy J. 61773 2 or more Burton Delphia 47688 * Calvin Randy 74631 * Camargo Nicolas 66385 2 or more Cameron Melinda 36048 2 or more Capuzzi Stephanie 74515 * Cardellio Mark 41977 2 or more Carnagie Elyse 79453 2 or more Carniak Russell 35317 2 or more Catchick Matthew 56102 2 or more Chadwick C. Clifford 34372 2 or more Chedraue George 41732 2 or more Chehab Mohamed 79912 2 or more Chrzanowski Susan 48846 2 or more

Chupac Marina 75561 2 or more Cibor Edward 23825 2 or more Clements Adam 77233 * Cobb Michael 78658 * Cojocar Jeff 54758 2 or more Coleman Rebekah 74254 2 or more Colthirst Jennipher L. M. 52876 2 or more Combs Stacy 55151 2 or more Conrad James 31343 2 or more Cooper Robert 12209 2 or more Correll Raymond A. 43868 2 or more Costello Brittany 76360 2 or more Cotton Horace 33268 * Cranford Adrian (&Associate) 76740 2 or more Crossman Bruce E. 26361 2 or more Curry Sophia 72103 2 or more Daskas Christine 52757 Under 2 yrs Dass Clarence 74074 2 or more Davis Tanisha 71716 2 or more Davis-Bradfield Daphne 70578 * Dean Dorothy 44455 2 or more Dean Michael P. 32631 2 or more Decker Rick 71606 2 or more Denno Richard 45240 2 or more Devlin Adam 72877 2 or more Dillard Joseph 37225 2 or more Donelson Russell D. 53660 2 or more Doran Mark 42055 2 or more Dozier Lauren 73510 * Drouillard Stacy 62735 2 or more Dunne Patrick 48796 2 or more Dunne Kristina 45490 2 or more Dupuis Brian 73208 2 or more Eldon Dean 41406 2 or more Elliott John 72977 2 or more Escobedo Elias J. 37808 2 or more Esshaki Justin 81021 less than 2 Fakih Stephanie 77167 2 or more Fakhouri Tarek 75829 2 or more Fanego Jose' R. 42696 2 or more Fanning Andrea 42853 * Farnette Robert Lee 13304 2 or more Farrar Charles P. 42783 2 or more Fasse Brandon 80370 2 or more Fenech Brian 68728 2 or more

Fields Noah 76165 2 or more Fillmore James 80581 less than 2 Finwall Daniel 66421 2 or more Fisher-Brady Johnetta 72872 2 or more Fitzpatrick-Timar Lori 40701 2 or more Flack Michael A. 31131 2 or more Flowers Jillvonnie 47711 * Flynn Timothy P. 42201 2 or more Fraiberg Matthew 57317 2 or more Frankel Robyn 43629 2 or more Franklin Jeffrey J. 71589 2 or more Franulic Kiana 73015 * Freedman Mark 47908 2 or more Friedman Bradley 70877 2 or more Friedman Lowell 56185 2 or more Friedman Theodore H. 27021 2 or more Friedrich Matthew 57011 2 or more Gagniuk Patrick 69038 2 or more Galat Richard 53662 2 or more Galea Nicholas 80729 * Gant Kameshia 69425 2 or more Garmo Brian 71007 * Gates Christopher F. 47909 2 or more Gates John E. Jr. 31896 2 or more Gaudenzi Tracy 68566 2 or more Gayden-Robinson Phyllis Ann 71733 2 or more George Derrick 69933 * Giancotti John 49071 2 or more Glanda Richard W. 32990 2 or more Glaser Geoffrey R. 46892 2 or more Goetz Linda 47395 2 or more Goldman Jeffrey 41660 2 or more Gomez Leonardo 53927 * Gonzales Juan 73537 2 or more Gracey Judith 39766 2 or more Grand Christine M. 51260 2 or more Grant Kameshia D. 69425 2 or more Greenwald Leslie Neil 23461 2 or more Grix Matthew 77689 2 or more Gross Daniel Gross 70101 2 or more Gruenberg Roy 74828 2 or more Gurley Joanne 76284 less than 2 Haines Derwood A. 46481 2 or more Haisha Vincent 76506 * Haith LaNita R. 38189 2 or more

Halprin Daniel M. 48902 2 or more Halprin Richard M. 42729 2 or more Hampton Douglas D. 46378 2 or more Haradhvala Adil 40095 2 or more Harris Lyle B. 42870 2 or more Hart Brandy 77783 2 or more Hatchett Khari 81218 2 or more Hatten Nadine R. 73789 2 or more Henner Jeremy E. 75907 2 or more Henry Kathy 41314 2 or more Hermiz Sokolowski Dora 59215 2 or more Hilf Daniel P. 55533 2 or more Hobbs Bradley 59534 * Holmes John H. 25446 2 or more Holt Karen 60165 2 or more Hom Katherine 62223 2 or more Hopp Amy M. 48872 2 or more Hubbs Andrew 57860 2 or more Huddleston Nicole Sophia 79308 * Humphries James 38930 2 or more Idelsohn Charles Bruce 36799 2 or more Ikeri Chinaza B. 77171 * Jacobs Anthony 52742 * Jacobs Marla 57626 * Jaffe Brent 81818 Less than 2 yrs Jarboa Christopher 59507 2 or more Jefferson Toya 69988 2 or more Jenkins-Holloman Claudnyse 73800 2 or more Jennings Madeline 44692 2 or more Jennings Marvin Jr. 70304 2 or more Johnson Charesa 57576 2 or more Johnson Charlene 31987 2 or more Johnson Duane 41842 2 or more Johnson Marissa 80677 less than 2 Johnson Pamela 59236 2 or more Johnson Rodney M. 78121 2 or more Johnson Vassal 72130 2 or more Jones Joshua 75264 2 or more Jones Kimberly D. 66139 2 or more Joseph Joseph M. 69691 * Joseph Kristina 79668 2 or more Jurczak Willaim 73185 * Kaczmarczyk Ralph 29637 * Kaiser Paul 55598 2 or more Kaluzny Lawrence G. 15663 2 or more

Kaluzny Todd A. 55534 2 or more Kaplan Jeffrey 74943 2 or more Kaplan Joshua 76596 2 or more Kaplovitz Ronald E. 36889 2 or more Kasoga Isa 70448 Kay Sheldon 27225 2 or more Kellett Charles 24746 2 or more Kelly R. Frank 35235 2 or more Kennedy John 51549 2 or more Kennedy Robyn 74895 2 or more Kessler Nicole unkn less than 2 Khavajian Mani 76143 2 or more Kliemann Melissa 80066 2 or more Kolly Douglas P. 29318 2 or more Kosmatka Marsha M. 57001 2 or more Kowalkowski Andrew 71120 2 or more Kozak Scott C. 60099 2 or more Kramer Jack 77490 2 or more Krauskopf Melissa 68278 2 or more Kriger Allison 76364 * Kucmierz Jason J. 63842 2 or more Kulesz John 69348 2 or more Kuruvilla Ashley 79001 2 or more Kuthy Douglas 38697 2 or more Kutinsky Eric 56690 2 or more Lamb Michael 79816 Less than 2 yrs Lansat William 36752 2 or more Larson J. Herbert 30189 2 or more Lashier Jessica M. 75937 2 or more Lavigne Joseph A. 50966 2 or more Law Spahic 71840 * Leger Lisa 80871 2 or more Lehman Mariell 74760 2 or more Lemelin Whitney S. 58914 2 or more Leone Andrew 45513 2 or more Lewis Anthony J. 43876 2 or more Lewis Randall M. 46134 2 or more Licata Matt 60354 2 or more Lindquist Jennifer 78329 * Lockhart Steve 32090 2 or more Loftin Paulette 71982 2 or more Long Emily 69607 2 or more Loyer Rebecca 81215 2 or more Lumberg Eric S. 46135 2 or more Lynch Steven P. 47008 2 or more

Machasic Thomas 76548 * MacKay Gregory 62030 2 or more Mannarino Angela 72374 2 or more Manoogian Maxwell M. 76341 2 or more Mansour Victor 71767 2 or more Marable Carla 62755 2 or more Marley Brigid 32847 2 or more Marr Charlie 36289 2 or more Martin Alicia 69003 2 or more Martin John 25888 2 or more Mattson Randall 69687 2 or more Mayrand Bruce A. 68687 2 or more Mazey Scott 48693 2 or more MCAlpine Warren 52522 * McCandliss Glenn 46246 * McCarthy Jamie L. 78968 2 or more McCarthy Michael J. 30169 2 or more McClerklin Anthony 74296 2 or more McCloud Dawn 79229 2 or more McEvans Tiffany 69877 2 or more McGlinchey Timothy 57272 * McGruder David E. 69898 2 or more McKelvy Deborah H. 44157 2 or more Mcloud Dawn 79229 2 or more McRipley G. Whitney 41150 2 or more Mead Jennifer E. 57106 2 or more Melder Aric 53650 2 or more Melder Sanford 23604 2 or more Mezy Romi 68245 2 or more Michaels Ellen Katzman 67943 2 or more Michel Paulette 71982 2 or more Mihas Harry 66147 2 or more Mikos Andrew 76268 2 or more Miller Frederick J. 41207 2 or more Miller Sean 79646 2 or more Miller Sheila 44565 2 or more Mintz Richard D. 17818 2 or more Misuraca Anthony 71965 2 or more Mitchell Michael 76974 2 or more Mitchell William III 31031 2 or more Moise Erica A. 75238 2 or more Morad Robert J. 56475 2 or more Morales Belem 81306 Less than 2 yrs Morreale David Paul 31647 2 or more Morrisroe Daniel 38369 2 or more

Mortimore Gregory D. 50972 2 or more Moss Jason 73453 2 or more Moss Steven 33039 2 or more Moxie Andrew T. 69568 2 or more Murphy Colleen 44432 2 or more Murphy Frances 78213 2 or more Nafsu Daryl 80010 2 or more Nafsu Joseph N. 73742 2 or more Nahikian William 81520 Less than 2 yrs Nance Janecki 68686 * Naumenko Leonard Nicholas 56499 2 or more Nesimova Nargiz 78876 Less than 2 yrs Niskar Joseph A. 55538 2 or more Noor Medina 58755 2 or more Norman Michael 75844 2 or more Nucian Joshua 70475 2 or more Nyenhuis Patrick 76343 2 or more Oakes Elisha 77414 * O'Donnell James R. 24580 2 or more Ogletree Aaron 69167 * Oliver Alyson 55020 2 or more Oliver Douglas K. 35810 2 or more Oram Justin unkn less than 2 yrs O'Reilly Patrick 70493 2 or more Orlando Lisa 52901 2 or more Otlewski J Doug 28959 2 or more Panchenko Maria 77451 2 or more Parker D. Ann 32302 2 or more Parker H. Wallace 18647 2 or more Payne Sharon 38749 2 or more Pelkey Kevin 70158 * Perkins-Moore Linda 36136 * Pernie Eric 79467 2 or more Peterson Carmen 80274 * Phillips Kerry O. 38790 2 or more Pietroski David 43312 2 or more Plasterer Nancy A. 37170 2 or more Poulton David 59039 * Powers Scott 59882 2 or more Pudyk Christy 62933 2 or more Quartz Thomas 77177 * Quas Jeffrey J. 42248 2 or more Quinn Christopher 64483 * Rand Shirley 40522 2 or more Reina Mark P. 36258 2 or more

Reina Steven John 42423 2 or more Reiner Alan J. 41718 2 or more Rhode Erika 71094 2 or more Rhyne Lauren 75196 2 or more Ribitwer Mitchell 26054 2 or more Richards II Ray E. 56972 2 or more Richardson Andra 41111 2 or more Richie Shantelle 79157 * Rivera Adam S. 58145 2 or more Roberts Rebecca A. 39677 2 or more Rogers Emerson 53338 2 or more Ross Cynthia 57805 * Ross Marcia 37440 2 or more Rosso Craig 35093 2 or more Rucker Tyron S. 61867 2 or more Rushing Sydney 78830 2 or more Rumschlag Adam 75783 2 or more Russell Hwa-Ling 69354 2 or more Sabbotta Jerome 25892 2 or more Sakis Jason 59525 2 or more Sakwa Layne 66050 2 or more Sallen Alvin C. 23797 2 or more Saltzman Shirley A. 26227 2 or more Samona Lauren 80655 less than 2 Sanford Moneka L. 62315 2 or more Savaya Sandy 74366 2 or more Savich Matt 51264 2 or more Sawicki Michael 34220 2 or more Sawicky Michael E. 52869 2 or more Schmidt Lisa Jeanette 73654 * Schmier James 70825 2 or more Schneider Dale 44732 2 or more Schouman Daniel J. M. 55958 2 or more Schwartz Jeffrey G. 32076 2 or more Secontine J. Randall 38612 2 or more Secrest John C. 41505 2 or more Seikaly Christopher M. 23248 2 or more Selburn Brian E. 29749 2 or more Serra Rudolph 35720 2 or more Shackelford Victoria 68574 * Sharon Alona 68782 2 or more Shedrick Karen 81708 less than 2 Sheehan Robert 44634 2 or more Shemke Christopher 74025 2 or more Sherbow Jeffrey 25324 2 or more

Shkreli Diana 73705 2 or more Siferd Yvonne 76213 2 or more Simmons Kathryn 44504 2 or more Simpson Jennifer 57155 2 or more Sims Keith 41507 2 or more Sind Raben Margaret Sind 39243 2 or more Singh Gautam Bir 73747 2 or more Sinutko David M. 52801 2 or more Sirlin Ralph 24635 * Small Richard 79511 2 or more Smith Cynthia L. 73968 2 or more Smith Larry O. 59538 2 or more Solomon Kathleen 38861 2 or more Solon Kristi 77007 2 or more Sorrano Richard 33828 2 or more Spahic Aida 71840 * Sprinkle Caroletta 49898 2 or more Stacer Andrew 55717 2 or more Star Trovious 79638 2 or more Steinberg Michael L. 43481 2 or more Steslicki Sarah 66057 * Stewart Joseph 21016 2 or more Stout Bradley S. 40417 2 or more Stout Kimberly W. 38588 2 or more Strenger Richard 55057 2 or more Sullivan Emily 81376 less than 2 Swift Maggie 77547 * Szpond Janet L. 43281 2 or more Tafelski Paul J. 52844 2 or more Takesian Theodore 27349 2 or more Tasevska Dina 52781 2 or more Tauber Marshall S. 34547 2 or more Taylor John A. Jr. 52473 2 or more Taylor Richard T. 55237 2 or more Taylor Sherman unkn less than 2 yrs Thomas Angelena 62593 2 or more Timinsky Mark 68569 2 or more Toby Charles D. 21483 2 or more Tochman Peter 42906 2 or more Tomko Thomas 40804 2 or more Torrice Mark 46663 2 or more Triplett Regina 69160 2 or more Truskolwaki Peter unkn less than 2 yrs Tylenda Paul T. 72495 2 or more Uhlar Miles 65008 *

Urich William R. 43273 2 or more Vainik Melissa N. 53750 2 or more Van Loon Jeffrey 39595 2 or more Van Steenkiste Matthew 71071 * Viswanath Sandesh K. 71860 2 or more Waddles Lori 42528 * Waldhorn Kenneth M. 37819 2 or more Walker Marilyn D. 34050 2 or more Walton Dawn 48974 2 or more Washington Markeisha 69275 2 or more Waske James 31546 2 or more Wassel Irene 44243 2 or more Watkins Lisa C. 41053 2 or more Weberman Jeff 66589 2 or more Wechsler Amy J. 60942 2 or more Weisberger Nicki 54260 2 or more Weiss Jordan 74097 2 or more Weitzman Ronald P. 22159 2 or more Wejroch Eric J. 67019 2 or more Werbling Benjamin 64889 2 or more West Joshua D. 60694 2 or more Weston Trevor 69664 * Wetherington Katharine 48945 2 or more Wheaton Donald 42681 2 or more Wheelock Joshua 76512 2 or more Whitaker-Payton Angela L. 54944 2 or more Whittie Dennis 79560 2 or more Williams Lawrence 42912 2 or more Williams Lawrence A. 42491 2 or more Williams Shawntane 72828 2 or more Williams-White Jeanette 61864 2 or more Wilson Dana F. 23899 2 or more Wilson Eric S. 24708 2 or more Wilson Kimberly 42002 2 or more Wilson Patrick 71035 2 or more Woll Pauline 41180 2 or more Woodside Sharon Clark 41295 2 or more Yousif Timmothy 64538 2 or more Zehr Starla D. 51291 2 or more Zemke Ryan 72107 * Zivian Robert J. 54726 2 or more Zlatopolsky Gregory 41341 2 or more Zuppke Jordan 78212 2 or more

*Indicates unknown years of experience, information not provided by Funding Unit or Court

Clarkston In-Custody Confidential Meeting Rooms17 The County will be required to renovate part of the Clarkston District Court to create confidential in-custody meeting space. County representatives met at the Clarkston District Court with MIDC Representative Tanya Grillo. Oakland County considered various layouts that contained confidential meeting space for in-custody defendants that were either not possible or did not meet the requirements of the Michigan Department of Corrections due to cell size restrictions and other building limitations. The County has developed a plan that will provide confidential in-custody meeting space but it requires that the County relocate the staff bathroom (immediately across from the in-custody holding cell) to space occupied by the jury assembly room in the Courthouse. The construction18 costs for relocating this bathroom and creating confidential in-custody meeting space for a defendant and his/her attorney are outlined in the facility renovation section of the Cost Analysis.19 Tanya Grillo has viewed the space to be altered/renovated and the relocation of the bathroom and has indicated her concurrence in this renovation at the Clarkston District Court. This confidential in-custody meeting space will be used for both meetings with the arraignment only attorney prior to arraignments and for meetings that must take place with an attorney and the defendant prior to preliminary examination, pretrial, and other District Court appearances. Clarkston Non-Custody Confidential Meeting Rooms20 Currently, there are only three conference rooms at the Clarkston Court for two Judges and a Magistrate. One room is used four days per week by the County Prosecutor’s Office and by a public defender or local prosecutor the other day. The other two conference rooms are used for local prosecutors and/or two Public Defenders (one for each judge depending on the day). The County, the Clarkston Court Administrator and the two Clarkston District Court Judges have met four-five times to consider ways to provide additional conference rooms for the arraignment only attorney and the public defenders at that Courthouse and to review various layouts to increase the number of conference rooms. Finally, an alternative plan was reached, which, while far less than ideal, appears to be feasible. The User Support person in the Clarkston Courthouse will be relocated to another 52nd District Courthouse and her office will become an additional conference room. The two existing conference rooms will be remodeled to create three smaller conference rooms. The current Pretrial Services office will be reduced in size (to give a little more space to the jury assembly room which has to yield space for the relocated staff bathroom) and will be designated for the arraignment only attorney and a laptop unit placed in that room (for interviews with the defendants in the White Lake Township police department lock-up). Thus, there will be four conference rooms available for the Pretrial Services employee, prosecutors, and public defenders. One of those conference rooms will be designated for the arraignment only attorney. Further, two days per week the Magistrate’s Courtroom is vacant and can be used as a backup conference room.

17 Ibid 18 The architectural and engineering costs for the renovation projects are set forth in the County’s Compliance Plan Development Costs. If not granted as part of those costs then they must be added to the County’s Facilities Renovation Costs which are part of the Cost Analysis. 19 The County notes that the 180 day time period for completing these three construction/renovation projects at the Clarkston Courthouse is not realistic. The Clarkston Courthouse is relatively small and the construction projects may need to be done consecutively not simultaneously so court operations can continue. Simply coordinating this many separate projects will take time. 20 Ibid

The costs associated with the foregoing work/changes to non-custodial conference rooms include renovations to the current Pretrial Services office, remodeling two conference rooms into three conference rooms, the cost of relocating the User Support person, furniture, signage and Polycom unit installation. See facility renovation costs in this Exhibit.

Michigan Indigent Defense Counsel Compliance Cost Estimate Project: Clarkston District Courthouse In-Custody Detention Conference Room Description: The Clarkston District Courthouse in-custody detention area does not have a private attorney / in-custody defendant conference room. Immediately adjacent to the detention area, however, is a staff bathroom. To accommodate MIDC requirements, the bathroom will be repurposed to create a private attorney / defendant conference room. Since the staff bathroom is the only one in the building not accessible by the public, a new staff bathroom must be built across the hall in the Jury Assembly area. To minimize the loss of Jury Assembly space, the current Pre-Trail Services office (room 113) must be downsized and various Jury Assembly room accoutrements must be removed (e.g., vending machines, TV stand, etc.) and the TV mounted on the wall. Attachments: Layout of In-Custody Detention / Jury Assembly Area

In-Custody Detention / Jury Assembly Area Costs

Budget Estimate: $164,693 Note: remodeling work may be performed during afternoon shifts or on weekends to keep critical operations (e.g., video arraignment) fully operational during normal business hours. If so, this will increase labor costs.

Attachment – Layout of In-Custody Detention / Jury Assembly Area

Attachment – In-Custody Detention / Jury Assembly Area Cost

Michigan Indigent Defense Counsel Compliance Cost Estimate

Project: Clarkston District Courthouse Non-Custody Conference Rooms

Description: The Clarkston Courthouse is a leased facility and it is the smallest of the four District Courthouses. There are only three conference rooms – one is used four days per week by the County Prosecutor’s Office, and by a public defender or local prosecutor the other day; the other two are used for local prosecutors and public defenders.

To accommodate MIDC requirements, the Court User Specialist will be moved to another 52nd District Courthouse; the current Pre-Trail Services office (room 113) will be downsized and used by the arraignment-only attorney; a video conferencing laptop PC will be installed in that room for the arraignment-only attorney to confer with in-custody defendants held in Police Department lock- ups; and the two conference rooms adjacent to each other will be subdivided into three conference rooms for use by Pre- Trial Services, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders. One room will be used by Public Defenders.

Attachments: Layout for Non-Custody Conference Rooms

Non-Custody Conference Room Costs

Budget Estimate: $65,245

Note: remodeling work may be performed during afternoon shifts or on weekends to keep critical operations (e.g., video arraignment) fully operational during normal business hours. If so, this will increase labor costs.

Attachment – Layout for Non-Custody Conference Rooms

Current Layout

Proposed Layout

Attachment – Non-Custody Conference Room Costs

OAKLAND COUNTY LOCAL SHARE CALCULATION

Oakland County is the funding unit for the 6th Circuit Court and the four election divisions of the 52nd District Court (Novi, Clarkston, Rochester Hills, and Troy).

Oakland County determined its local share using the local share definition as defined by MCL 780.983(h) and the MIDC “Local Share Calculation” instructions in the Compliance Plan for Indigent Defense Standards 1–4 Instructions found at http://michiganidc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Compliance-Plan-Application-and-Instructions-and-portal-screenshots.pdf.

Oakland County’s local share is $1,828,758. For FY 2010 – 2012, Oakland County’s total average expenditures was $3,149,975 and total average reimbursement was $1,321,217, calculated as follows:

Certification: I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the calculation of

the local share is correct and complete and that all fiscal details included are

direct indigent defense system expenditures and reimbursements in the given fiscal years.

Date: May__, 2018 ________________ __________ ________________ Lynn C. Sonkiss

Fiscal Services Officer

Oakland County

Signed, verified and sworn to before me in Oakland County, Michigan, on

May ___, 2018 .

_______________________________

Notary Public, State of Michigan, Oakland County

My Commission expires:

Acting in the County of Oakland