Public Defense

Board of Public Defense FY 2012-2013

Due to several biennia of underfunding the Board of Public Defense faces significant fiscal challenges.

• Already reduced staffing by 60 F.T.E. attorney positions since 2008- 15% of the attorney staff, and 200,000+ hours of attorney time.
• Caseloads nearly double American Bar Association Standards.
• In 2009 Part-Time Defenders provided 40,000 uncompensated hours.
• Public defenders and staff agreed to two year salary freeze.
• Have had three episodes of voluntary leaves, early retirement incentive, and employee buyouts in the last 18 months.
• Counter-cyclical as economic conditions worsen more people are eligible for services.
• For the 2012-2013 biennium, with the loss of temporary funding, expiration of employee leaves and mandated costs of insurance and retirement the Board could lose an additional 55-65 attorney positions.

B.  Public Defense as a Priority

• Constitutionally mandated service.
• Lack of defenders leads to questions on the integrity of the judicial system and the rule of law- a court system that lacks the public’s trust.
• No control over caseloads or workloads.  (Cases once assigned cannot be refused- Dzubiak v Mott).
• Largest user of the court system, 85-90% of all serious criminal cases handled by public defenders.
• Only function is to provide mandated service.

• Caseloads could rise to more than 500 per defender annually. (A busy private criminal attorney may handle 70 cases in a year).
• The speedy trial rights and the courts’ timelines for timely case processing will not be met. Could result in the court ordering the release of defendant’s whose demand for a speedy trial cannot be met.
• Adverse impact on victims, clients, other justice agencies and the general public.

C. Service Issues to Date

In a 2010 report the Office of the Legislative Auditor found that:

• High public defender caseloads are dragging down the justice system.
• Public defenders often have just 10 minutes to meet the client, evaluate the case, explain the consequences of various options, and get a decision from the client.
• 72% of the state’s judges say a lack of defenders is causing delays
• Courtrooms are idle because the public defender is tied up someplace else.
• Public defender schedules require some counties to set out-of-custody trials a year out.

Also:

• Already eliminated non-mandated services in child protection area and post-adjudication drug courts
• No public defenders at 1^st appearance in one half of the counties in Minnesota for out of custody misdemeanor cases.
• No public defenders at 1^st appearance in one-half of Minnesota counties for in custody cases.
• Often public defenders are scheduled in two different court houses this brings the court system to a halt.  Court rooms often stop multiple times in a day.
• Delays in adjudicating all case types especially out of custody cases.
• In some districts public defenders are covering 3 and sometimes 5 different counties.
• In some parts of the state trial dates are set out more than a year.
• In some parts of the state defenders have more than 175 open files.

Appellate Process

• Significant delays in the state’s appellate courts.
• Waiting lists- average time that appellate courts will have to wait until counsel is assigned will be approximately 6 months, 1 year by FY 2010
• Delays in appellate services could eventually lead to the courts ordering the release of prisoners who have been on the waiting list too long.

Efficiencies

• Where funding has allowed, added support staff to provide services in lieu of attorney time.
• Replacing the time and case management system to capture data that is already being entered in MNCIS.  This will eliminate redundant entry of data.
• Working with prosecutors on projects related to electronic disclosure.
• Expanded use of volunteers and law students to perform tasks previously performed by attorneys.
• Collaboration in handling serious matters, so that cost-effective support staff has a greater role in case prep.
• Co-counseling on more serious matters, where attorneys are able to share their knowledge and expertise while the matter is being litigated.
• Working with the Court and prosecutors to develop practical and fair uses for ITV