In December a Georgia Supreme Court commission
took the state seriously to task for not meeting its constitutional
obligations in providing for indigent criminal defense, and the
group’s final report had Emory fingerprints all over it.
Interim Provost Woody Hunter served on the commission that he, in
fact, helped get off the ground, with the aid of former first lady
Rosalynn Carter. Nearly three years ago Hunter and other members
of a State Bar Committee on Indigent Defense determined that the
best way to effect change would be through a nonpartisan statewide
commission appointed by the Supreme Court. Hunter enlisted the help
of Carter, whose interest sprang from the fact that inadequate public
defense often affects juveniles and the mentally ill, and then-Chief
Justice Robert Benham was open to their plea.
“Some of the unfairness and incompetence of the judicial system
that conerns me most has to do with children, mental illness, race
and the lack of competent counsel,” Carter said. “They
are all interconnected, because these areas include some of the
most vulnerable populations among us. They are the ones who most
need competent legal assistance and often don’t get it.”
Created in late 2000, the Supreme Court Commission on Indigent Defense
comprises some 26 legal professionals, from judges and prosecutors
to public defenders, law school deans and corporate general counsels,
as well as a few state lawmakers. Though Hunter, former dean of
the law school, is the only member currently employed at the University,
the commission is rife with Emory connections; five other members
are Emory alumni, and commission chair Charles Morgan (general counsel
for BellSouth) is on the Law School Council.
“A lot of us who’d been involved with the issue for
a long time knew the indigent defense system was a mess,”
Hunter said, adding that perhaps 80 percent of individuals in the
criminal justice system qualify as indigent.
The commission began by reviewing indigent defense as it is currently
practiced in Georgia. State counties—which must come up with
almost nine out of every $10 spent on public defense, Hunter said—handle
the matter in one of three ways: (1) a public defender’s office
that works in much the same way as a district attorney’s office;
(2) a panel system of court-appointed, prequalified private defense
attorneys; or (3) a contract system that awards public defense contracts
to the low bidder.
Larger counties, such as Fulton and DeKalb, use the first system
with usually adequate results. Some counties, such as Cobb, have
had good results with a panel system. But rural counties often don’t
have enough revenue to support public defenders, and Hunter said
some have contracted for as little as $14,000 with a private firm—sometimes
not even located in the same county—to handle indigent defense
for an entire year.
“There’s simply no way to do it effectively for that
amount of money,” Hunter said.
The result is what the commission calls a shirking of Georgia’s
constitutional duties. When an individual is held for days without
an arraignment because his lawyer, who works two counties away,
cannot find time to visit the jail, this violates the individual’s
right to basic due process, Hunter said. In its report the commission
outlined a range of shortcomings in Georgia’s county-based
indigent defense system including inadequate funding; unqualified
attorneys serving as defenders; lack of a statewide structure to
monitor the system; and lack of an effective system to identify
mentally ill defendants or to provide counsel for juvenile defendants.
The commission also studied the systems of other states, such as
Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas, in coming up with its recommendations.
Under the commission’s plan, Georgia’s 49 judicial circuits
would set up their own public defenders’ offices (mirroring
the county district attorneys’ offices); individual counties
could opt out as long as their own system was approved by a statewide
board.
Perhaps most importantly, the proposed system would transfer funding
responsibility to the state. Though politicians may shiver at the
thought of another $50 million added to the state budget, the resulting
benefits—less overcrowding in county jails, shorter waits
for trial, fewer appeals due to inadequate counsel—could assuage
their concerns.
“This would probably save money in the long run,” Hunter
said.
State Sen. Chuck Clay (R-Marietta), a member of the commission,
has introduced a bill that would bring the commission’s recommendations
into reality.
Clay’s bill passed the Senate unanimously, but there may be
obstacles in the House where a bill has been introduced to elect
public defenders.
“The election of public defenders would be a terrible idea,”
said Hunter. “The lawyer’s individual responsibility
to a client cannot be made subject to the whims of electoral politics.”
|