A pro se defendant in Illinois recently asked for a court-appointed “assistant” to take notes for him during his trial:
“I want an assistant to keep notes and keep track of things during trial testimony. I’m not able to keep track of everything that’s said by everybody during testimony,” said Pinkston.
I know exactly how you feel, Mr. Pinkston! Can I get an assistant like that, too, please?
Today we celebrate the Declaration of Independence and the freedoms it eventually led to. As public defenders, we know how precious and fragile those freedoms are. So here’s to independence, here’s to freedom, and here’s to the brave and dedicated people who work tirelessly everyday to defend the public from excessive and unconstitutional uses of force by the government. In other words, here’s to Public Defenders! Let freedom ring!
Missoula has just become the second Montana city (Billings being the first) to start using GPS shackles to ” track accused – or convicted – offenders.” Apparently, Missoula’s system is going to be an “active” or real-time tracking system, while the system used by Alternatives, Inc., in Billings is “passive,” meaning it only uploads data to officials when the shackled person plugs the unit into a base station at home. The Municipal Court is the only court that really ever orders the shackle in Billings (knock wood).
While it’s true that these shackles may be a way to reduce jail overcrowding, there are often better, cheaper, more just solutions to that problem. As the article notes:
the solution to the Missoula County jail’s overcrowding problems is not as simple as strapping a tracking device to an offender’s ankle. Part of the solution includes encouraging law enforcement to cite and release more offenders, providing those who are jailed with more opportunities to post bail, and increasing the limited number of offenders who qualify for supervision within the community.
Kudos to Chelsi Moy and The Missoulian for pointing that out. The legislature could also help out by revising some misdemeanor statutes to remove jail time from the list of possible penalties—replace it with community service, fines, or other penalties. (This would also have the effect of reducing public defender caseloads, thus saving taxpayers money on multiple fronts.)
Two things the article does not make clear are: 1) who is paying for this “service”? and 2) How many people are being ordered to wear these shackles before trial? In Billings, if you’re one of the lucky 20-30 people wearing a shackle at any one time, you may have the pleasure of paying $150/month as a base cost for the privilege, plus you’ll definitely pay $15/day for every day you’re ordered to wear the thing. Payment due a week at a time, one week in advance, please. Oh, and if you don’t pay, the Municipal Court will gladly cooperate with the request from Alternatives, Inc., to throw you in jail. Nevermind that it’s illegal for you to go to jail just for being poor. Yeah, forget about that.
The other thing that happens in Billings is that the Municipal Court frequently orders innocent people to wear these shackles while they are awaiting trial. So, in addition to paying a bond to get out of jail (because almost no one a too few of those arrested in Billings gets a Notice to Appear — everyone goes a large number go to jail first and must pay bond; release on a person’s own recognizance is exceedingly far too rare), if you’re accused of a misdemeanor in Billings you might also have to pay $450-600/month for the privilege of being in the community while you await your trial. And that’s not to mention the indignity of having your every move tracked by satellite. So much for the presumption of innocence!
Here’s hoping Missoula doesn’t adopt these abhorrent practices as it begins using its own version of these shackles.
Ed. Note: This post edited as shown above to reduce hyperbole.
The Missoulian reports that Sam Lemaich, regional head of the Department of Corrections (DOC) probation and parole for the Missoula region, will be retiring soon.
It sounds like Missoulian writer Michael Moore has a crush on Lemaich.
[tags]probation, DOC, missoula[/tags]
According to this story from Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, state laws there cap the caseload of public defenders at 184.5 felonies and 492 misdemeanors per year. It’s not clear whether that means each defender is expected to close almost 600 cases each year, or whether each attorney is expected to do one or the other (the felonies or the misdemeanors). Either way, those caseloads are higher than the loads recommended by the Public Defender Commission in Montana (PDF), which are:
Recommendations are one thing; real numbers are another. As that Wisconsin story indicates, defenders are regularly carrying much higher numbers of cases than the law allows there, and while the same seems to be true here, I haven’t heard of it being quite as bad as things sound in Fond du Lac.
In addition, it appears Wisconsin defenders are unhappy that outdated indigency criteria mean that too many people are denied access to lawyers. Here in Montana the problem seems to be the reverse — the law basically says that anyone can and should be appointed a public defender, regardless of means. After that initial appointment, the public defender’s office is supposed to conduct an indigency test and tell those who have too many resources that they need to find their own counsel. This means that public defenders can end up handling cases that they really shouldn’t be handling, which can deny resources and representation to those who really need it.
Apparently, things could be much worse, as this story from Tennessee makes clear:
During a recent day in Alcoa city court, Garner and his assistants plowed through 50 cases, devoting about 12 minutes to each. That kind of pace makes it hard to provide the quality of service that people deserve, he said.
“I try to do all my work by telephone because we simply don’t have an hour to spare to talk to a person about a case,” he said “I’m not sure all of our clients know what’s going on because everything happens so fast.”
Ouch.
Not that defense attorneys would ever dream of making fun of law enforcement personnel, but if they did, they might get a chuckle out of lolcopz. Copz apparently hate it when you forget your stick.
What is this? See lolcat.
From Prosecutor Post-Script we learn that:
Who’s A Rat is a database driven website designed to assist attorneys and criminal defendants with few resources. The purpose of this website is for individuals and attorneys to post,share and request any and all information that has been made public at some point to at least 1 person of the public prior to posting it on this site pertaining to local,state and federal Informants and Law Enforcement Officers. This includes an Informant who makes his or her Informant status known to any person.
Interesting. More from the NYT. Of course, prosecutors think this is a very bad idea.
As a regular reader pointed out, the U.S. House has passed a bill to create a Loan Repayment Assistance Program (LRAP) to help public defenders and prosecutors pay down their student loan bills. As the TaxProf Blog notes, the bill would:
- Establish a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least three years, as State or local criminal prosecutors or as State, local or Federal public defenders in criminal cases.
- Allow eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000
The House bill is H.R. 916 (PDF), and you can track it on GovTrack. It sounds excellent, but now the Senate needs to pass something like this to take it the next step toward reality. The Senate version is S. 442, which appears to be waiting for debate. Contact your senator and tell him or her how important this bill could be to improving our criminal justice system. If you’re a Montana resident, here’s the info you need:
Need something to tell your senator? Take inspiration from Richard Goemann, director of defender legal services for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, who said:
“Taxpayers have an interest in a fair and reliable criminal justice system,” Goemann said. “Without experienced, talented public defenders and prosecutors, the criminal justice system does not work.”
Or listen to Martin S. Pinales, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, who said:
“Because of high student debt and low pay, public defenders’ offices have a difficult time attracting and keeping qualified attorneys. . . . The constant influx of new, inexperienced attorneys undermines the reliability, fairness, and efficiency of the criminal justice system. The John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act would slow down the revolving door and improve the quality of justice for all Americans.”
Or, from the other side, we have Mathias H. Heck, Jr., President of the National District Attorneys Association, who said:
“The ‘John R. Justice Prosecutors and Public Defenders Incentive Act’ is crucial to public safety. . . . This important legislation will ensure that prosecutor offices across this country are able to recruit the best and brightest attorneys and are able to retain those qualified and experienced prosecutors in their offices.”
If there’s anything on which criminal lawyers can agree, it’s that most all of us could have better lives and less stress if we didn’t have to worry so much about student loan bills. Please, write your senator and help get this legislation passed!
For more on this legislation, see:
[tags]pay, LRAP[/tags]
This is completely hearsay, but I was told last week that at a recent negotiation between the union representing public defenders in Montana and representatives from the state, the state put forward the proposition that, for purposes of pay, public defenders are not “attorneys” — we are public defenders. This is because “attorneys” employed by the state — e.g., as attorneys general, aka, prosecutors — get a certain pay range and the state doesn’t really want to have to pay its public defenders that much. Therefore, we are not attorneys, we are something else — public defenders, of course.
Like I said, this was just a story someone who was at the meeting told me, so I don’t know how serious anyone was about this or whether it might have been a joke or just an idea floated and quickly withdrawn. Regardless, it shows that at least some people in state government either have no respect for public defenders or simply don’t understand the fundamentals of the criminal justice system.
Can anyone who was at that meeting shed any more light on this rumor? [tags]union, contract, pay, public pretender[/tags]
Following up on the Montana state budget, it appears the legislature finally agreed upon a budget. Best of all, although I can’t find any confirmation online, my understanding is that most, if not all, of the $4 million previously cut from the budget for the Office of State Public Defender, was restored in the final spending bills. I’ll update this once I know more…
UPDATE: Silly me. As a kind reader pointed out, the Montana legislature puts its work online, so on page A17 of this bill (PDF) you’ll see that the budget for the Office of State Public Defender ended up with the $19 million it requested. Interestingly, that includes $30k for “Mediation for Criminal Proceedings” as part of HB 629. I’ll have to look into that…
[tags]budget[/tags]
image: detail of installation by Bronwyn Lace