U.S. Department
of Justice
Court Filings in Support of Public Defense
The Department of Justice has filed a series of Statements of Interest and amicus briefs related to public defense.
In 2013, ATJ and CRT filed a Statement of Interest in a class action lawsuit alleging that accused indigent defendants were systematically denied effective assistance of counsel in Mount Vernon, Washington and Burlington, Washington. The Statement of Interest took no position on the merits of the case but requested that if the court found constitutional violations, it consider as part of its remedy workload controls for local public defense providers and the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure compliance. On December 4, 2013, the court found that the localities had engaged in a systematic deprivation of the right to assistance of counsel and issued an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs that required the defendant cities to hire a part-time public defense supervisor tasked with monitoring and reporting on the delivery of indigent defense representation.
In 2014, ATJ and CRT filed a Statement of Interest to offer the Department’s views with respect to the right to counsel. In this case, a class action suit before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the plaintiffs alleged that, due to systemic failures in five New York counties, indigent criminal defendants had been constructively denied the right to counsel. The plaintiffs claimed that a lack of funding deprived public defenders of the time, resources, and ability to prepare cases or meaningfully represent their clients and amounted to the denial of counsel. In its Statement, the Department advised the court that under-resourcing public defense systems may force even otherwise competent and well-intentioned public defenders into a position where they are, in effect, a lawyer in name only. The case settled soon after the Department filed its Statement and required the State to, inter alia, provide every indigent criminal defendant with counsel at initial appearance, set caseload standards, and invest in attorney training and supervision.
In 2015, ATJ, CRT, and the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia filed a Statement of Interest in Georgia state court addressing right to counsel concerns for children. The class action asserted that the public defense system in the Cordele Judicial Circuit has been so underfunded and poorly staffed that children were routinely denied their right to legal representation. The Department identified procedural safeguards that must be provided to children who appear in court. The Statement addressed the issue of waiver of counsel specifically and argued that that if a child decides to waive the right to an attorney, courts must ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and made only after consultation with counsel before the court accepts the waiver. The case settled less than a month after the Department filed its statement. The resulting consent decree required, inter alia, the public defender office hire additional salaried staff, maintain a division specializing in youth defense, and require all defenders to undergo training.
In September 2015, ATJ and CRT filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in a class action lawsuit alleging that the public defense system in Luzerne County is so underfunded and poorly staffed that those accused of crimes are constructively denied their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. According to the plaintiffs, public defenders in Luzerne County are unable to engage in many of the basic functions of representation, including conferring with clients in a meaningful way prior to critical stages of their legal proceedings, reviewing client files, conducting discovery, engaging in motion practice, conducting factual investigations or devoting the time necessary to prepare for court. In its brief, the Department asserted that “the Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires more than the mere appointment of a member of the bar.” Further, the Statement also asserts that a civil action for prospective relief under the Sixth Amendment is viable when traditional markers of representation are systemically absent or compromised as a result of substantial structural limitations, “such as a severe lack of resources, unreasonably high workloads, or critical understaffing.”
In May 2016, ATJ, CRT, and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Idaho filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Idaho in a class action lawsuit alleging the systemic violation of Idaho indigent defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel. According to plaintiffs, due to insufficient oversight, training, and funding, public defenders across the state were unable to engage in many of the basic functions of representation, including meeting with clients in a meaningful way prior to critical stages of their legal proceedings, conducting a significant investigation into their case, filing substantive motions, retaining experts to challenge the prosecution’s allegations or devoting the time necessary to prepare for hearings and trials. In its brief, the Department clarified the distinction between filing a civil suit prior to conviction based on a state-wide constructive denial of counsel under Gideon v. Wainwright and a civil suit filed after conviction based on ineffective counsel in a particular instance under Strickland v. Washington. The amicus brief explained that the plaintiffs’ complaint “is not with their individual lawyers’ competence” but with the state’s systemic failure to provide legal representation to defendants who cannot afford it, a fundamental right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gideon. The Department’s brief also argued that there is no legal barrier to bringing such a civil suit prior to conviction, and that seeking prospective injunctive relief is the only way a court can identify and remedy system-wide noncompliance with Gideon.