The Terrible Toll of America's Broken Misdemeanor Courts
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF C RIMINAL D EFENSE L AWYERS April 2009
Supported in part by grants from the Open Society Institute and the Ford Foundation. C OPYRIGHT © N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF C RIMINAL D EFENSE L AWYERS
This report is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Work license (see http://www.creativecommons.org). It may be reproduced, provided that no charge is imposed, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers is ac- knowledged as the original publisher and the copyright holder. For any other form of re- production, please contact NACDL for permission.
N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF C RIMINAL D EFENSE L AWYERS 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-872-8600; Fax: 202-872-8690
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
By Robert C. Boruchowitz
Malia N. Brink
Maureen Dimino
J OHN W ESLEY H ALL President, NACDL Little Rock, AR
E DWARD A. M ALLETT President, FCJ Houston, TX
N ORMAN L. R EIMER Executive Director, NACDL Washington, DC
K YLE O’D OWD Associate Executive Director For Policy, NACDL Washington, DC
NACDL Indigent Defense Committee
Rick Jones Co-Chair New York, NY
William Wolf Co-Chair Chicago, IL
Anthony Cotton Vice-Chair Waukesha, WI
E. Gerry Morris Immediate Past-Chair Austin, TX
Geneva Vanderhorst Vice-Chair Washington, DC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS . . . 4
ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE ..............5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................7
INTRODUCTION .................................10
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The Misdemeanor Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 The Volume of Misdemeanor Offenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Rights of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Why Are Lawyers Needed in Misdemeanor Cases? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Consequences of a Misdemeanor Conviction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 PROBLEMS IN MISDEMEANOR COURTS ....................14 Absence of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Uninformed Waiver of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Eligibility Limitations for Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Conferring Directly with Prosecutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Recommendations — Absence of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Deterrents to Asking for Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Delay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Application Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Recommendations — Deterrents to Asking for Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Misdemeanor Caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The Meaning of the Caseload Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Excessive Caseloads Put Lawyers in Jeopardy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Recommendations — Excessive Caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Why Are Misdemeanor Caseloads So High? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Overcriminalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Misdemeanor Indigent Defenders Take Brunt of Budget Shortages . . . . . . . 26
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
Recommendations — Causes of Excessive Caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Misdemeanor Defense in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Meet and Plead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Denial of Bond/Inability to Make Bail and the Pressure to Plead . . . . . . . 32 Prosecutorial Pressure to Plead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Impact of Increased Collateral Consequences on Misdemeanor Caseloads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Early Disposition Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Effect of Excessive Caseloads on the Clients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Recommendations — Misdemeanor Defense in Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Misdemeanor Defenders Lack Access to Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Recommendations — Lack of Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Inexperienced Counsel in Misdemeanor Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Lack of Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Lack of Supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Recommendations — Inexperienced Counsel in Misdemeanor Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Lack of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Recommendations — Lack of Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Inadequate Compensation for Defenders in Misdemeanor Courts . . . . . . 42 Recommendation — Inadequate Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Judicial Conduct in Misdemeanor Courtrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Disparate Treatment of Indigent Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Judges Face Discipline for Not Honoring Right to Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Recommendations — Judicial Conduct in Misdemeanor Cases . . . . . . . . 45 Lawyer Burnout in Misdemeanor Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Recommendation — Lawyer Burnout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Disproportionate Effect on Minority Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Recommendations — Disproportionate Impact on Minority Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3
CONCLUSION ..................................48
Table of Contents
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS
T he National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) is the preemi- nent organization in the United States advancing the goal of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons charged with a crime or wrong- doing. NACDL’s core mission is to: Ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime … Foster the integrity, independence and expertise of the criminal defense pro- fession … Promote the proper and fair administration of criminal justice. Founded in 1958, NACDL has a rich history of promoting education and reform through steadfast support of America’s criminal defense bar, amicus advocacy, and myriad proj- ects designed to safeguard due process rights and promote a rational and humane crim- inal justice system. NACDL’s 12,000 direct members — and more that 90 state, local and international affiliates with an additional 40,000 members — include private crim- inal defense lawyers, public defenders, active U.S. military defense counsel, and law professors committed to preserving fairness in America’s criminal justice system. Rep- resenting thousands of criminal defense attorneys who know firsthand the inadequacies of the current system, NACDL is recognized domestically and internationally for its ex- pertise on criminal justice policies and best practices. The research and publication of this report was made possible through support of indi- vidual donors and foundations to the Foundation for Criminal Justice. This report would not have been possible without the specific support of the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Institute.
4
For more information contact: T HE N ATIONAL A SSOCIATION OF C RIMINAL D EFENSE L AWYERS 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-872-8600 This publication is available online at www.nacdl.org/misdemeanor
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
ABOUT THE FOUNDATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE
T he Foundation for Criminal Justice (FCJ) is organized to preserve and pro- mote the core values of America’s justice system guaranteed by the Consti- tution — among them due process, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, fair sentencing, and assistance of effective counsel. The FCJ pursues this goal by seeking grants and supporting programs to educate the public and the legal profession to the role of these rights and values in a free society and assist in their preservation throughout the United States and abroad. The Foundation is incorporated in the District of Columbia as a non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporation. All contributions to the Foundation are tax-deductible. The affairs of the Foundation are managed by a Board of Trustees that possesses and exercises all powers granted to the Foundation under the DC Non-Profit Foundation Act, the Foundation’s own Articles of Incorporation, and its Bylaws.
5
5
For more information contact: F OUNDATION F OR C RIMINAL J USTICE 1660 L Street NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-872-8600
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
T he authors wish to thank the Board of Directors of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Board of Trustees for the Foundation for Criminal Justice for their support of this project. The research and drafting of this report was a collaborative effort between NACDL and Professor Robert C. Boruchowitz of the Seattle University School of Law. Professor Boruchowitz served as lead researcher on the project. In addition to teaching in the Youth Advocacy Clinic, Professor Boruchowitz is the Director of The Defender Initia- tive, a project that works to document problems in public defense systems and to ad- vance efforts to improve public defense representation. The authors express their thanks to all those who assisted in the research of this report. E. Gerry Morris, Suzanne Spencer, Angela Ramage-Wolf, Shelley Stark, and Mark Rankin assisted with site visits in Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Lauren McLane and Mary Lyons, students at Seattle University School of Law, provided re- search and site visit assistance to Professor Boruchowitz. William Wolf provided guid- ance and support to NACDL staff. We also thank Stephen McConnell, Jeffrey Daman and their colleagues at Dechert LLP, Marvin Schechter, and Vic Walczak of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, all of whom con- ducted early site visit work in Pennsylvania that, in large part, led to the development of this project. We thank the Open Society Institute for supporting of the project, including hosting the conference on misdemeanor courts in New York City. We also thank the Ford Founda- tion for its support. We thank the Dean of Seattle University School of Law, Kellye Testy, as well as the Director of Continuing Legal Education, Jim Rosenfeld, and his col- leagues, Julie McClure and Rebecca Parker, who graciously hosted the conference in Seattle. We also express our appreciation to Seattle University Professor Deirdre Bowen, who reviewed our survey and recommended changes, Robert Spangenberg and David New- house of The Spangenberg Group, who offered information and advice, as well as par- ticipated in the conferences, and David Carroll of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, with whom the authors consulted on a number of aspects of this report. Finally, the authors offer their appreciation to the participants at the site visit locations across the country for their cooperation and candidness, as well as the numerous de- fenders who responded to our survey and follow-up questions.
6
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T he explosive growth of misdemeanor cases is placing a staggering burden on America’s courts. Defenders across the country are forced to carry un- ethical caseloads that leave too little time for clients to be properly repre- sented. As a result, constitutional obligations are left unmet and taxpayers’ money is wasted. NACDL’s comprehensive examination of misdemeanor courts, including a review of existing studies and materials, site visits in seven states, an internet survey of de- fenders, two conferences, and a webinar, demonstrated that misdemeanor courts across the country are incapable of providing accused individuals with the due process guaranteed them by the Constitution. As a result, every year literally mil- lions of accused misdemeanants, overwhelmingly those unable to hire private coun- sel, and disproportionately people of color, are denied their constitutional right to equal justice. And, taxpayers are footing the bill for these gross inefficiencies. Legal representation for misdemeanants is absent in many cases. When an attorney is provided, crushing workloads often make it impossible for the defender to ef- fectively represent her clients. Counsel is unable to spend adequate time on each of her cases, and often lacks necessary resources, such as access to investigators, experts, and online research tools. These deficiencies force even the most compe- tent and dedicated attorneys to engage in breaches of professional duties. Too often, judges and prosecutors are complicit in these breaches, pushing defenders and de- fendants to take action with limited time and knowledge of their cases. This leads to guilty pleas by the innocent, inappropriate sentences, and wrongful incarceration, all at taxpayer expense. This report explains, in depth, these and other problems observed in misdemeanor courts and offers recommendations for reform, while highlighting best practices from across the country. The recommendations include:
7
Divert misdemeanors that do not impact public safety to penalties that are less costly to taxpayers. Defenders and judges across the country noted that misdemeanor dockets are clogged with crimes that they believe should not be punishable with expensive incarceration. Right now, taxpayers expend on average $80 per inmate per day 1 to lock up misdemeanants accused of things like turnstile jumping, fish and game violations, minor in possession of alcohol, dog leash violations, driving with a suspended license, pedestrian solicitation, and feeding the homeless. These crimes do not impact public safety, but they do have a huge impact on state and local budgets across the country. Continued on next page 1
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Continued from previous page A number of jurisdictions have had success diverting some of these offenses to less costly penalties and re- ducing the caseloads of misdemeanor courts, thereby freeing up resources for other pressing needs. For ex- ample, in King County, Washington, a relicensing program allows individuals who have had their driver’s license suspended pay the fines that led to the suspension through community service. The program is open to individuals regardless of whether they have a criminal charge pending, and, if completed, any pending charges of driving with a suspended license (DWLS) are dropped. An evaluation of the program found that it not only resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of DWLS cases bogging down misdemeanor courts, but also generated net revenue.
8
Reduce pressure on defendants to plead guilty, particularly at first appearance.
2
The overwhelming caseloads in misdemeanor court put pressure on everyone in the court system — defenders, prosecutors and judges — to resolve cases quickly. Pros- ecutors use one time only plea offers to force early pleas. Judges utilize bail deter- minations and the threat of pretrial incarceration to encourage early pleas. Defenders, if they are even involved, note that a better deal might not come along and that they have no time to fully investigate the client’s case. As a result, an extraordinary number of misdemeanor defendants plead guilty at their first appearance in court, whether or not they com- mitted the crime. Not only is such coercion in stark violation of the Constitution, it also means tax- payers are footing the bill to imprison the innocent, as well as other defendants, whose situation might be better served by alternatives to incarceration.
In New York City in 2000, almost 70 percent of misdemeanor cases were disposed of at the first appearance — most through a guilty plea.
Site team members in Washington State observed two defenders advise as many as 132 de- fendants on an arraignment calendar in under four hours. Most stipulated to the police re- port, which resulted in a finding of guilt.
Enforce ethical obligations of all participants in misdemeanor adjudications.
Misdemeanor courts are rife with violations of professional ethical standards. Defenders countenance case- loads that prohibit them from providing competent representation to their clients. Prosecutors talk directly with defendants and convince them to waive their constitutional rights. Judges encourage defendants to proceed without counsel and plead guilty quickly in order to move dockets. Ethical obligations for all professionals in misdemeanor court should be vigorously enforced to ensure that every defendant re- ceives a fair and unbiased proceeding. 3
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
4
Provide counsel for any defendant facing the possibility of incarceration.
Often in misdemeanor courts, defendants are not informed of their right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, or are coerced into waiving counsel to avoid having to spend additional time in jail awaiting the appointment. Sometimes they are even required to pay an application fee in order to obtain the counsel that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
Time and time again site team observers watched individuals plead guilty without counsel.
Judges actually acknowledge the widespread violation of Sixth Amendment rights. For example, Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal of the Supreme Court of South Carolina told a group of attorneys at a state bar meeting, “ Alabama v. Shelton is one of the more mis- guided decisions of the United States Supreme Court … so I will tell you straight up we [are] not adhering to Alabama v. Shelton in every situation.” 2 Judges and prosecutors routinely speak directly to defendants and seek waivers of coun- sel in order to resolve the case more quickly. In Colorado, a state statute provides that a misdemeanor defendant must engage in plea negotiations with a prosecutor before the de- fendant can receive appointed defense counsel. 3 It is indefensible that, despite longstanding constitutional precedent , a significant percentage of defendants in misdemeanor courts proceed without an attorney. The absence of counsel in these cases undermines the fairness and reliability of the criminal justice system and violates the Con- stitution, opening state and local governments up to costly lawsuits.
9
Provide public defenders with the resources necessary to effectively represent their clients.
Across the country, misdemeanor defenders report caseloads six and seven times greater than the national standards. In Chicago, Atlanta and Miami, defenders carry more than 2,000 misdemeanor cases per year. 4 With these massive caseloads, defenders have to resolve approximately 10 cases a day — or one case every hour — not nearly enough time to mount a constitutionally adequate defense. Defender offices, contract defender offices, and assigned counsel lists must have sufficient at- torneys to permit the maintenance of ethical caseload standards. Additionally, defenders should have access to resources necessary to provide effective assistance, including legal research services, investigators, experts, social workers, and mental health support services. 5 The consequences for the accused individuals involved, no less for the Constitution, demand that mis- demeanor courts provide due process and equal justice for all those who appear in them. All across America, misdemeanor courts are failing to meet this critical standard. Implementation of the recom- mendations of this report will save taxpayers much needed resources while making these courts, and our justice system, reliable for all Americans.
Executive Summary
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
INTRODUCTION T he vast majority of accused individuals first come into contact with the criminal jus- tice system through a minor offense, known as a misdemeanor. Yet remarkably little attention has been devoted specifically to understanding what happens to defendants at the misdemeanor level. Criminal justice reform studies have often noted that extensive problems exist in misdemeanor courts, but have rarely focused sharply on these courts. For this reason, NACDL decided to in- vestigate misdemeanor courts throughout the country, document the strengths and weaknesses, and identify ways to improve the operations of these courts. Drawing upon existing literature and research, on-site visits in a number of jurisdictions, interviews and survey results from defend- ers across the country, and the input of diverse participants at two conferences and a webinar, this report details existing problems in misdemeanor courts, highlights best practices, and makes a series of recommendations for change. Methodology Over the course of a year, NACDL, together with Professor Robert C. Boruchowitz of Seattle University School of Law, gathered a wide range of existing studies, reports, and statistics on misdemeanor courts and misde- meanor defense, including law review articles, news coverage, governmental studies, and expert reports, as well as information from other organizations working on indigent defense reform, including reports and man- uals on misdemeanor practice. After reviewing these materials, the authors organized site visits to misdemeanor courts in a number of juris- dictions. Prior to the visits, NACDL representatives conducted interviews with key criminal justice personnel to understand the operation of the local misdemeanor courts, as well as perceived strengths and weaknesses. On the visits, NACDL representatives observed the operation of the misdemeanor courts, and conducted additional interviews with key players in misdemeanor proceedings, including judges, defense counsel, prosecutors, and accused persons. Where possible, site teams gathered data on misdemeanor prosecutions, public defender case- loads, and other relevant statistics. The authors selected locations for site visits based on a preliminary assessment of problems by NACDL’s staff and Professor Boruchowitz, in consultation with experts on indigent defense around the country. Geographical diversity and the type of public defense system were also considered. Site visits occurred in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. In many of these states, public defense 5 is or- ganized on a county-by-county basis, and, when possible, a number of counties were visited. The authors conducted an Internet survey of defenders across the country seeking information on misdemeanor practice in each respondent’s jurisdiction, as well as respondent’s impressions of the operation of misdemeanor courts. In total, 185 individuals responded to the Internet survey. The respondents reported practicing in 26 states and two tribal courts. 6
10
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
Additionally, NACDL held two conferences for the pur- pose of seeking input on the problems associated with mis- demeanor courts, as well as possible solutions. The first conference was held in New York in May 2008, and the second took place in Seattle in July 2008. Over 150 public defenders, prosecutors, judges, and reform activists from across the country attended the conferences. Finally, NACDL hosted a webinar on the preliminary findings of the report with experts from across the country to seek ad- ditional input. The report documents the findings of this extensive re- search effort. 7 The report first provides an introduction to misdemeanor courts, reviewing the charges brought in mis- demeanor courts, as well as the rights of the misdemeanor defendant. It then outlines the common problems observed and reported in misdemeanor courts throughout the country. At the conclusion of each section, the report enumerates policy reform recommendations that would address the problems described, highlighting best practices observed around the country. The Misdemeanor Courts In most states, crimes are divided into two categories — felony and misdemeanor. Misdemeanors are the less seri- ous offenses, for which punishment is generally limited to one year in jail. 8 Common misdemeanor offenses include petty theft, disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, cur- few violations, loitering, prostitution-related offenses, driving under the influence, driving with a suspended li- cense, resisting arrest, minor assault, under-age possession of alcohol, and minor controlled substance and parapher- nalia offenses. Misdemeanors are commonly adjudicated in separate courts from felony cases. These courts often adjudicate minor civil offenses as well as misdemeanor criminal of- fenses. In a number of states, such as Arizona, Missouri, New York and Pennsylvania, some of the judges in these courts are not lawyers. 9
The Volume of Misdemeanor Offenses Most people who go to court in the United States go to misdemeanor courts. The volume of misdemeanor cases is staggering. The exact number is not known, as states differ in whether and how they count the number of mis- demeanor cases processed each year. The National Cen- ter for State Courts collected misdemeanor caseload numbers from 12 states in 2006. Based on these 12 states, a median misdemeanor rate of 3,544 per 100,000 was obtained. 10 If that rate held true across the states, the total number of misdemeanor prosecutions in 2006 was about 10.5 million, which amounts to 3.5 percent of the American population. 11 While this overplays the actual prosecutions by population, because of individu- als charged multiple times and non-citizen prosecutions, it is a startling reminder of the breadth of the impact of these courts. 12
11
11
Rights of Defendants in Misdemeanor Cases
Misdemeanor defendants, like all those accused of crimes, are entitled to due process. 13 They have the right to receive the evidence against them and present evidence in their de- fense. They have a right to confront witnesses. And, they have the right to have their guilt proven beyond a reason- able doubt. Not all misdemeanor defendants are entitled to a jury trial, however. The federal constitutional right to a jury trial has been interpreted to apply only when a defen- dant is facing more than six months in prison. 14 Right to Counsel in Misdemeanor Cases The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecu- tions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assis- tance of Counsel for his defense.” In Gideon v. Wainwright , the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted this right to require the state to provide counsel to a defendant charged with a felony who could not afford to hire his own counsel. The Court stated, “reason and reflection require us to recognize that, in our adversary system of justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be as- sured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” 15
Volume of Misdemeanor Cases
5 million
1972 2006
10.5 million
Introduction
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
Even after Gideon , persons charged with misdemeanor of- fenses were not guaranteed appointed counsel, and the mis- demeanor courts were rife with abuse. In 1968, five years following Gideon, Professor John M. Junker observed:
In addition, the sentence and the collateral consequences can be quite different depending on which crime is found to have been committed. A lawyer also is needed to help the accused person sort out the implications of plea bargains offered by the prosecutor.
[A] large majority of the [people] an- nually charged with non-traffic misde- meanors must, if they are financially unable to hire an attorney, face the be- wildering, stigmatizing and (especially at this level) assembly-line criminal justice system without the assistance of counsel. The misdemeanor prosecu- tion is the “Appalachia” of the crimi- nal justice system. 16
As the Court stated in its decision in Argersinger :
The requirement of counsel may well be necessary for a fair trial even in a petty- offense prosecution. We are by no means convinced that legal and constitutional questions involved in a case that actually leads to imprisonment are any less com- plex than when a person can be sent off for six months or more. 20
It is for this reason that, in Argersinger v. Hamlin , the U.S. Supreme Court extended the right to counsel to misde- meanor defendants. 17 The Court further protected the right to counsel in Alabama v. Shelton , holding that a defendant must have had counsel in the underlying adjudication for incarceration to be imposed for a violation of misdemeanor probation. 18 The Court reasoned:
Attentive defense counsel is particularly important in mis- demeanor courts because the volume of cases means that prosecutors and judges too often and too easily can over- look factual issues. Indeed, the Supreme Court observed that the volume of misdemeanors 21 results in pressure for “speedy dispositions,” and stated that there is significant evidence of “prejudice” resulting from “assembly-line jus- tice” in misdemeanor courts. 22
12
Deprived of counsel when tried, con- victed, and sentenced, and unable to challenge the original judgment at a subsequent probation revocation hear- ing, a defendant … faces incarceration on a conviction that has never been sub- jected to “the crucible of meaningful ad- versarial testing.” 19
Consequences of a Misdemeanor Conviction
There is a prevailing misconception that misdemeanor con- victions do not truly affect a person. In fact, a common question received during the research for this project was, “Why are you spending time on misdemeanors?” Underly- ing this comment is the belief that it matters less whether the justice system is accurate in misdemeanor cases. But, the consequences of a misdemeanor conviction can be dire. As the Supreme Court noted in deciding Argersinger , “the prospect of imprisonment for however short a time will sel- dom be viewed by the accused as a trivial or ‘petty’ matter and may well result in quite serious repercussions affect- ing his career and his reputation.” 23 Indeed, a wrongful con- viction, even in a minor case, is pernicious. If the constitutionally mandatory processes of our criminal jus- tice system cannot determine accurately a person’s guilt or innocence of a minor criminal charge, court outcomes are subject to question in all cases. In the years since the Argersinger decision, the collateral consequences 24 that can result from any conviction, in- cluding a misdemeanor conviction, have expanded signifi- cantly. These consequences can be quite grave. The defendant can be deported, 25 denied employment, or denied access to a wide array of professional licenses. 26 A person convicted of a misdemeanor may be ineligible for student loans and even expelled from school. 27 Additional conse- quences can include the loss of public housing and access to food assistance, which can be dire, not only for the mis- demeanant but also for his or her family. 28 Fines, costs and other fees associated with convictions can also be stagger-
Why Are Lawyers Needed in Misdemeanor Cases?
No one should underestimate the importance of counsel ad- vising a person of his or her rights in any criminal case. Even in a simple case, the law can prove complex. The law is not a fixed set of rules. It is always affected by the individual circumstances of a case. For example, one might think the law regarding murder is simple — one person can- not kill another. But, if the circumstances surrounding the killing show that the person who was killed was, in fact, the aggressor, the law becomes far less black and white, and the case becomes considerably more complex. This is no less true of misdemeanors. The law of trespass may seem obvious — either a person was on private prop- erty or the person was not. But, there are a number of fac- tors that can complicate a trespass case: Was the property obviously private or was there some reason to believe it was public property? Was there a warning, either posted or ver- bal? Was an event occurring that was open to the public? The answer to these questions can mean the difference be- tween innocence and guilt. Without an attorney to sort through all the facts and assess what is legally important, these critical distinctions too easily can be overlooked.
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
ing and too frequently are applied without regard for the ability of the defendants to pay the assessed amounts. 29
As Rick Jones, the Executive Director of the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, noted:
Standing in the courtroom, it may seem like a wise thing just to get the criminal charge over with by pleading guilty, but a criminal conviction, even for a minor offense, has an enormous impact on a client’s life. She may lose her housing, her job, her health or food bene- fits. It can impact the custody of her chil- dren. She may face deportation. No criminal conviction should be regarded as minor or unimportant.
13
Misdemeanor convictions also have serious consequences with regard to any future criminal charges faced by the same defendant. A minor conviction can limit a person’s ability to vacate, set aside or dismiss an earlier, more seri- ous conviction. It can also greatly increase the punishment for any future offense and reduce opportunities for sen- tencing reductions. One example is the inability of a person with a prior misdemeanor conviction to utilize the con- trolled substances “safety valve” statute and related provi- sion in the federal sentencing guidelines. 30 A defendant who was previously convicted of a misdemeanor and received 30 days or more in jail or more than one year of probation, and who later faces a federal drug crime charge, is ineligi- ble for a reduction of sentence under a provision that per- mits federal judges to sentence below the mandatory minimum set forth in the statute. 31
Introduction
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
PROBLEMS IN MISDEMEANOR COURTS M ore than 35 years ago, Professor William Hellerstein of the Brooklyn Law School wrote “the criminal court, the misdemeanor court, is such an abomination that it destroys any myth or notion that I ever had about … American criminal justice.” 32 The statement could just as easily have been made today. The research, surveys, site visits, and interviews conducted by NACDL confirmed that the operation of misdemeanor courts in this country is grossly inadequate and frequently unjust. Witnesses overwhelmingly described programs bereft of the funding and resources necessary to afford even the most basic tools essential for fair adjudications. As a result, literally mil- lions of accused misdemeanants, particularly those unable to hire private counsel, and dis- proportionately people of color, routinely are denied the due process to which the Constitution entitles them. Almost 40 years later, the misdemeanor criminal justice system is rife with the same prob- lems that existed prior to the Argersinger decision. Legal representation for indigent defen- dants is absent in many cases. Even when an attorney is provided to defend a misdemeanor case, crushing workloads make it impossible for many defenders to effectively represent clients. Too often, counsel is unable to spend sufficient time on each of their cases. This forces even the most competent and dedicated attorneys to run afoul of their professional
14
duties. Frequently, judges and prosecutors are complicit in these breaches, pushing defenders to take action with inadequate time, despite knowing that the defense attorney lacks appropriate in- formation about the case and the client. Absence of Counsel Despite the clear ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that persons accused of misdemeanors have a right to court-appointed counsel, a significant per- centage of defendants in misdemeanor courts never receive a lawyer to represent them. A Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report in 2000 cited a survey of jail inmates conducted in 1989 and 1996. In the survey, 28.3 percent of jail inmates charged with misdemeanors reported having had no counsel. 33
“[T]he criminal court, the misdemeanor court, is such an abomination that it destroys any myth or notion that I ever had about … American criminal justice.” — Professor William Hellerstein, Brooklyn Law School.
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
“The dirty little secret of the criminal justice system is that most eligible people do not get defenders.”
Site team observations in several states indicated that the percentage of misdemeanor defendants without counsel is greater than the BJS study suggested. 34 Time and time again site team observers watched individuals plead guilty with- out counsel. In North Dakota, the observer noted that counsel was not appointed or present at arraignment for misdemeanor cases, despite the fact that most defendants pled guilty at that hear- ing and many were sentenced to jail time. The judge never informed the defendants of their right to counsel. Instead, the judge asked each defendant, “Did you speak to a lawyer?” When the defendant indicated that he or she did not, the judge asked, “Are you going to?” The defendants universally answered in the negative, and the judge pro- ceeded to accept the plea and sentence the defendant. In numerous other jurisdictions, as in North Dakota, site teams observed judges who failed to inform defendants of their right to have counsel appointed if they could not afford to hire counsel. In fact, frequently the disregard for the Supreme Court’s right to counsel rulings was blatant. For example, at a meeting of the State Bar, the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court publicly stated that she instructed misdemeanor court judges to ignore a Supreme Court Sixth Amendment ruling:
— Edward Monahan, Deputy Public Advocate, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy. 38
Shelton . Many district courts throughout Michigan simply do not offer counsel in misdemeanor cases at all, while others employ various ways to avoid their constitutional obligation to provide lawyers in mis- demeanor cases.” 39 Uninformed Waiver of Counsel How is it that so many people go without counsel in mis- demeanor court? As noted above, in some jurisdictions, the defendant’s constitutional rights are simply disregarded and never acknowledged. More often, however, the constitu- tional rights are acknowledged, but hastily disposed of with a “waiver.” Waivers, even of constitutional rights, are not illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded that an adult defendant has the right to waive counsel, but first the judge must: (1) inform the defendant of his or her right to appointed coun- sel; 40 and (2) make the defendant “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” 41 The inquiry by the judge should be thorough. 42 In other words, the judge must confirm that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and in- telligently decided against using a lawyer and in favor of self-representation. Similarly, national performance stan- dards provide that indigent defendants should not be called upon to plead guilty until counsel has been appointed or properly waived. 43 In a number of jurisdictions, site teams observed judges ig- noring the rules regarding waiver. Time after time, courts made clear to defendants that they must waive counsel to proceed. There were no inquiries into the education or so- phistication of the defendants and very few efforts to warn defendants regarding the dangers of self-representation or the kind of assistance counsel could provide. Often the waiver was incorporated into the first part of the proceed- ing and was presented as a rhetorical, compound question directed at whether the defendant wanted to dispose of the case quickly. The judge asked the defendant something like, “You are waiving counsel and wish to proceed now, right?” and the defendant responded, “Yes.” In Maricopa County, Arizona, the site team observed a judge practically instructing defendants to waive their right to counsel. For example, the judge said the following:
15
Alabama v. Shelton [is] one of the more misguided decisions of the United States Supreme Court, I must say. If we ad- hered to it in South Carolina we would have the right to counsel probably … by dragooning lawyers out of their law of- fices to take these cases in every magis- trate’s court in South Carolina, and I have simply told my magistrates that we just don’t have the resources to do that. So I will tell you straight up we [are] not adhering to Alabama v. Shelton in every situation. 35
Documentation and reports from across the country con- firm the frequency with which the right to counsel is com- pletely disregarded in misdemeanor courts:
TEXAS: “Three-quarters of Texas counties appoint counsel in fewer than 20 percent of jailable misde- meanor cases, with the majority of those counties ap- pointing counsel in fewer than 10 percent of cases. The vast majority of jailable misdemeanor cases in Texas are resolved by uncounseled guilty pleas.” 36 CALIFORNIA: In Riverside County, California, more than 12,000 people pled guilty to misdemeanor offenses without a lawyer in a single year. 37 MICHIGAN: “People of insufficient means in Michigan are routinely processed through the crimi- nal justice system without ever having spoken to an attorney in direct violation of both Argersinger and
Problems
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
You are charged with reckless driving. So, I guess basically before we talk about it, let me do a couple preliminaries. … I want you to waive your right to an attor- ney. You have a right to have an attorney, but I’m not going to give you the public defender. You would have to go and hire one and I don’t think you’re going to do that. I think you and I are going to talk about this right here, right now, right?
Eligibility Limitations for Counsel In some jurisdictions, counsel is not appointed due to re- strictive financial eligibility guidelines. In Gideon, the Supreme Court provided that counsel should be appointed for those “financially unable to obtain counsel,” or “too poor to hire a lawyer.” 46 Problematically, the Supreme Court did not establish a threshold or process for determin- ing that financial eligibility. As a result, practices and policies for determining eligibil- ity for public defense services differ widely from state to state. Indeed, frequently these practices and policies differ from county to county, and courtroom to courtroom. 47 De- fenders across the country noted that many defendants who are financially incapable of retaining counsel are denied ap- pointed counsel. For example, in Lower Kittitas, Washington, approximately 16 percent of people who apply for defenders are denied. During the observation visit, the commissioner suggested to defendants that they might want to talk to the prosecutor be- fore getting a lawyer. The commissioner made no inquiry into whether the defendant could afford to retain counsel. As a result, defendants who proceed without counsel may be doing so despite being unable to hire an attorney. Conferring Directly with Prosecutors Often defendants are encouraged, or even required, to dis- cuss their cases directly with prosecutors. Ethically, this is problematic, particularly if the prosecutor is aware that the waiver of counsel, if there was one, was not sufficiently in- formed and voluntary. Ethics rules generally prohibit a lawyer from giving ad- vice to an unrepresented person whose interests may be adverse. 48 In fact, the model ethical rules specifically re- quire prosecutors to “make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the pro- cedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reason- able opportunity to obtain counsel.” 49 Further, the rules forbid a prosecutor from seeking to obtain waivers of im- portant pretrial rights from unrepresented accused per- sons. 50 Despite these clear prohibitions, site visits and research demonstrated that it is common for prosecutors to confer directly with defendants, frequently requesting and processing the defendants’ waiver of counsel, and then negotiating guilty pleas. In Hays County, Texas, for example, court staff directed misdemeanor defendants to confer with the prosecutor about a possible plea before the defendants had a meaning- ful opportunity to request the appointment of counsel. In fact, the site team observed that no defense attorney was present in the courtroom, nor was a judge. Two prosecutors sat at counsel table — one at each table. They called a de- fendant’s name and then negotiated a plea directly with the defendant. The judge waited in another courtroom. After
The defendant then signed a form waiving his right to counsel.
As in Maricopa County, the right to counsel and the warn- ings regarding waiver of counsel are frequently enumer- ated in a written form. In many instances, the court handed the form to a defendant with no explanation and said, “Sign here,” and the defendant signed. The court did not conduct a thorough inquiry of the defendant as to his or her ability to read or whether the defendant understood what he or she signed.
16
“The defendant is usually told he must first talk to a prosecutor about his case and get a plea offer before he is allowed to have a lawyer appointed.”
— A Tennessee public defender. 44
In Tampa, Florida, when a member of the site team entered the misdemeanor courtroom, a court official immediately presented her with a form that combined a waiver of coun- sel with a plea of guilty. She was told to take a seat and fill out the form. Among other things, the form asked her to attest that, “I am of sound mind and body and hereby freely and voluntarily waive my right to an attorney in the case(s) above in accordance with Florida Rules of Criminal Pro- cedure 3.160(e).” Although the form described at the out- set the dangers of waiving counsel, at the point of asking for waiver of the rights under the rule, the form neither quoted the language of the rule nor did it explain that the rule describes the rights of all defendants to court-ap- pointed counsel. 45
Minor Crimes, Massive Waste
“ Alabama v. Shelton [is] one of the more misguided decisions of the United States Supreme Court, I must say … so I will tell you straight up we [are] not adhering to Alabama v. Shelton in every situation.”
pleas were negotiated, the defendant would proceed to the courtroom where the judge was located, and a different prosecutor would inform the judge of the plea agreement. Only in some of the cases where the plea involved a jail sentence did the prosecutor inform the defendant that he or she must sign up for a court-appointed lawyer. Unfortu- nately, not all defendants pleading to jail time were in- formed of the right to receive counsel. The site team witnessed a similar process in a northeastern Pennsylvania county. Defendants on the misdemeanor docket were told to go to a room in the basement before their cases were called. When observers went down to the basement to observe what was happening, they discovered a prosecutor in a conference room. The prosecutor was negotiating plea deals directly with defendants who would then go back up to the courtroom to plead guilty and be sentenced. In Kittitas County, Washington, the commissioner presiding over misdemeanor arraignments dealt directly with all de- fendants. Neither a prosecutor nor a defense attorney was present. The commissioner frequently advised defendants that they might be able to work something out directly with the prosecutor. The court’s practice was to provide the de- fendant with a form that had the phone number of the pros- ecutor at the top of the form, and information about contacting the contract defender at the bottom of the form. During the site team’s observations of the court, a number of defendants asked to speak with the prosecutor. There was no colloquy on waiver of counsel. Rather, the court warned defendants that “once you have an attorney, the prosecutor can’t talk to you directly.” In Colorado, the standard practice is for a misdemeanor de- fendant to speak directly with the prosecutor. Indeed, a statute specifically directs the prosecutor to speak directly with the defendant and come to a plea agreement. Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-7-301(4) states:
— Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal, Supreme Court of South Carolina.
In practice, most misdemeanor defendants in Colorado never see a public defender. The practice is not only ethi- cally problematic, it also violates the most recent pro- nouncement of the U.S. Supreme Court on the appointment of counsel, which provides that counsel must be appointed before or at the defendant’s first appearance before a judi- cial officer. 51 Recommendations — Absence of Counsel 1. The right to counsel should be observed in accordance with Argersinger v. Hamlin and Alabama v. Shelton. As the Supreme Court stated in Argersinger , “[u]nder the rule we announce today, every judge will know when the trial of a misdemeanor starts that no imprisonment may be imposed, even though local law permits it, unless the ac- cused is represented by counsel … and therefore know when to name a lawyer to represent the accused before the trial starts.” 52 Despite this pronouncement, more than 35 years later, the Court’s ruling is widely ignored. It is indefensible that, despite Gideon, Argersinger and Shelton, a significant percentage of defendants in misde- meanor courts do not have a lawyer represent them. The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again acknowledged that defense counsel is an integral part of the adversary system, and necessary to ensure accurate outcomes in court. The absence of counsel in misdemeanor cases fundamentally undermines the fairness and reliability of the criminal jus- tice system. 2. Waivers of counsel should be handled care- fully, with judges ensuring that the defen- dant fully understands his or her right to counsel, as well as the dangers of waiving counsel. “Counsel is needed so that the accused may know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully aware of the prospect of
17
In misdemeanors, petty offenses, or of- fenses under title 42, C.R.S., the prosecut- ing attorney is obligated to tell the defendant any offer that can be made based on the facts as known by the prose- cuting attorney at that time. The defendant and the prosecuting attorney may engage in further plea discussions about the case, but the defendant is under no obligation to talk to the prosecuting attorney. The pros- ecuting attorney shall advise the defendant that the defendant has the right to retain counsel or seek appointment of counsel. The application for appointment of coun- sel and the payment of the application fee shall be deferred until after the prosecut- ing attorney has spoken with the defendant as provided in this subsection (4). Upon completion of the discussions, the prose- cutor shall inform the court of whether a plea agreement has been reached[.]
Problems
The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor Courts
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64Made with FlippingBook Online document maker