Tag Archive for: Southern Center for Human Rights

Governor Hands Private Probation Companies a Rare Legislative Loss

/by

Governor Deal has vetoed House Bill 837, legislation that would have limited disclosure about private probation companies from open records requests. The Peach Pundit provides exclusive coverage on the veto in an article describing all of yesterday’s vetoes and in a specific post addressing HB 837. Greg Bluestein has also covered the veto.

Why is this veto such a big deal? Many, if not most, state probationers who are serving misdemeanor sentences are supervised by private probation companies. Who are the folks most likely to end up on misdemeanor probation? Generally, that list would include persons convicted of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana, driving on a suspended license, DUI, theft, or family violence battery. But that list also includes the poor who get a speeding ticket or other low-level misdemeanor and who cannot afford to pay their fine on the day of court. These individuals are often put on probation until they pay off their fine. And this list includes people who were represented by the public defender (often a private law firm with a contract with the county to represent the indigent) who, upon conviction find that, poor or not, the lawyer wasn’t really free. When these defendants cannot afford to reimburse their public defender for his services (and the meter has been running the whole time) or pay the fine, the court’s “finance plan” includes being supervised on probation until these expenses are paid off. When the defendant needs a long time to pay off the debt to the State, time on probation increases dramatically. For instance, in a multi-count accusation, the defendant may take on consecutive 12-month sentences. For instance, defendants convicted of DUI were often stopped for speeding first. Such defendants are eligible for 24 months of probation. Read more

Southern Center Files Suit in Cordele Circuit, Again, for State of Indigent Defense There

/by

The AJC reports that The Southern Center for Human Rights has filed suit against GPDSC, its director, the Circuit Public Defender, the District Attorney and others for the state of indigent defense in that circuit. The suit is brought on behalf of 8 indigent defendants, juvenile and adults individually and as representatives of a class of indigent criminal defendants. The suit alleges that adult defendants are forced to wait for months with no contact or minimal contact with a lawyer. In some instances, a non-lawyer investigator has relayed plea offers just before trial. Juveniles have found themselves at some hearings with a lawyers and at others without. The Circuit has no juvenile public defender, and (according to the complaint) when the lawyers are off in court someplace else in the circuit, juvenile court continues, with or without counsel.

In 2003, the Southern Center sued officials in the Cordele Circuit for what was then a contract public defender system. According to the press release that was issued when the recent suit was filed:

The public defenders are unable to spend more than a few minutes per case.  Many poor people accused of crimes meet a public defender who knows nothing about them or their charges for the first time in court.  After a hurried conversation, many enter guilty pleas and are sentenced.  All but a few convictions are obtained through guilty pleas by people who do not receive the most basic elements of legal representation such as substantive attorney-client interviews, investigations, motions practice, and informed, professional advice about whether to plead guilty.

The well-written Complaint may be found here (pdf). The press release is also worth reading.

Superior Court Judge Says Georgia Indigent Defense is Broken

/by

Before today, I had never seen an Order styled “Court’s Analysis of Indigent Defense System.” Judge J. David Roper of Richmond County, Georgia entered this document into the record on the same day that he entered a consent order involving a suit between the Southern Center for Human Rights and the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council. By order, conflict defenders can only carry a caseload of 125 felony cases or 300 misdemeanors at a time, and requires the local Public Defender to notify the central office within 24 hours of realizing that there is a conflict.

The interesting thing about the case is the apparently gratuitous memorandum filed contemporaneously with the Order. The Judge entered findings of fact that the problems with indigent defense in Georgia are systemic and are much bigger than budgetary. For instance, the director of the standards council has no supervisory authority over Circuit Public Defenders. When the director was asked who was responsible for circuit public defenders, the director said “Judge, I really don’t know.”

The Council is in the executive branch, the same branch as the police and the prosecutor. The council’s director is appointed by and serves at the pleaseure of the Governor. The Director lacks the ability to remove the Circuit Public Defender, but the Circuit Defender may be removed with or without cause.

For conflict cases, the Circuit Public Defender must set in place a procedure for dealing with conflicts (cases where a single lawyer cannot represent multiple parties because they have an incentive to blame each other). However, when the Circuit Public Defender declares a conflict, the Standards Council pays for the representation — essentially a financial incentive to find conflicts.

Taking these facts and others into account, the judge found that “the present system is fraught with a lack of accountability, especially at the circuit level.” He also wrote that the system is broken and describes it as “a mega-bureacracy adrift with no rudder.”

It is good to see that calls for reform in the system are coming from the ground up. The Supreme Court has punted at nearly every opportunity to weigh in. Perhaps the local judges on the front lines are more aware of how it is falling apart and appear to be the most willing to do something about it. It’s enough to make a person cynical about the appellate process.

ADDRESS

199 W Jefferson St.
Madison, GA 30650

PHONE

678-610-6624

EMAIL

tori@scottkeylaw.com