S mart Partnerships for Cost Effective Indigent Defense

1. Smart Partnerships for Cost Effective Indigent Defense National Association of Counties Annual Conference Fort Worth - Tarrant County - Texas July 2013

2. Introduction of the Panel Hon. Jon Burrows Bell County (TX) Judge; TIDC Member • Alex Bunin • Chief Public Defender, Harris County (Houston) Texas Hon. Sharon Keller Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge; Chair, Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) Jim Bethke TIDC Executive Director Council of State Governments Justice Center Carl Reynolds Justice Center, Senior Legal & Policy Counsel (moderator)

3. Basics of Indigent Defense a. Client Perspective (Alex Bunin) b. Defender Perspective (Alex Bunin) c. County Perspective (Judge Burrows) The Texas Approach (Judge Keller, Judge Burrows, and Jim Bethke) Evaluating Indigent Defense (Carl Reynolds & Alex Bunin) Panel Conversation Outline Council of State Governments Justice Center

4. The Constitutional Imperative Council of State Governments Justice Center Persistent Problems Delivering the Right to Counsel

5. What the Accused Want from Their Lawyer The Lawyer and His Client By: Honore Daumier Council of State Governments Justice Center

6. What Defense Counsel Wants for Each Case and Defendant The Advocate By: Honore Daumier Council of State Governments Justice Center

7. Four Models to Deliver Indigent Defense Council of State Governments Justice Center

8. What the Harris County Public Defender Adds to the Defense Community and the Criminal Justice System Harris County Data Sheet, Texas Indigent Defense Commission, available at: http://tfid.tamu.edu/public.net/Reports/DataSheet.aspx?cid=101 .

9. “Procedural Justice” Promotes Respect for Court Decisions Council of State Governments Justice Center Voice – the opportunity to tell your side of the story before a decision is made Respect – treating people well- with courtesy and politeness - and showing respect for their rights Neutrality – judges who are neutral and principled decision makers Trust – judges who are sincere and caring The willingness to accept court decisions is linked more to the procedures used to reach those decisions, than the decisions themselves.

10. Counties Care About and Pay for Justice . . . Council of State Governments Justice Center • Jail booking for 9 million people each year • $70 billion on justice each year • $1.2 billion on indigent defense Indigent defense is important to ensure - - a truly “just” system of justice; and -cost effectiveness

11. But Pressure on State and Local Budgets Continues Counties receive approximately 30% of their revenue from the state. Local budgets are also experiencing shortfalls due to reduced tax revenues Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (2013) Council of State Governments Justice Center

12. NACo Focuses on Smart Justice Council of State Governments Justice Center

13. What Counties (and States) Want From their Indigent Defense System Council of State Governments Justice Center

14. Basics of Indigent Defense a. Client Perspective (Alex Bunin) b. Defender Perspective (Alex Bunin) c. County Perspective (Judge Burrows) The Texas Approach (Judge Keller, Judge Burrows and Jim Bethke) Evaluating Indigent Defense (Carl Reynolds & Alex Bunin) Panel Conversation Outline Council of State Governments Justice Center

15. Long Road to Meaningful Indigent Defense Texas Fair Defense Act (FDA) Gideon vs. Wainwright 2001 1963 2013 12 Years of Implementation Struggle to translate at state level the “right to counsel” into a meaningful indigent defense system

16. Fair Defense Act to Address Texas Indigent Defense No safeguards in local indigent defense appointment practices Texas Indigent Defense Commission (formerly Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense) Judicial discretion to select counsel for appointment fueled appearance of cronyism No consistent standards regarding training and experience No state funding or oversight Few Public Defender’s Offices Set infrastructure to address grievances and implement FDA in 2001 Appearance of inconsistencies in qualifications for death penalty cases No reporting on budget/performance

17. Fair Defense Act Put Structure in Place to Improve the Delivery of Indigent Defense in Texas State Funding Process Standards Oversight Timing of Appointment State Provides Some Funding to Support Indigent Defense Required Plans Transparency & Data from New Reports Method of Appointment Compensation Grants for Improvements Fiscal & Program Monitoring Qualifications Improve Quality of Representation Meets Constitutional Standards Heightens prima facie legitimacy Improves Justice Outcomes Texas Indigent Defense Commission |3

18. Highlights of Accomplishments Discretionary Grant Program Key Process Standards Implemented Oversight in Place Local plans with agreed method of appointment, fee schedules and qualifications in place Prompt appointments Regional Capital Public Defender Office “Fair, neutral and non-discriminatory” appointment processes Harris County Public Defender Office Plan and Expense Reporting to State Routine Prompt payment process and standardized fee schedules 12 New Programs Serving the Mentally Ill Compliance audits routinely conducted New Vet Defender Program and Publication Qualification process Legislative initiatives developed with Commission direction First Client-Selection Program to be tested in the Country Ten exonerated through TIDC funded Innocence Projects Expansion of Public Defender programs Texas Indigent Defense Commission |4

19. Three Keys to TIDC’s Success Council of State Governments Justice Center • Respect Local Control • Meaningful Collaboration • Transparent Operations

20. Bell County’s Portable Online Indigent Defense Management System Transforms Court Culture

21. Bell County:Works at Addressing Broader Indigent Defense Goals

22. TIDC Supports Statewide Expansion for Bell County’s Program

23. Regional public defender for capital cases – “murder insurance” Start-up funded by TIDC Counties contribute by formula Budget predictability State Judicial Regions Covered • Cost efficiency to counties • Quality representation – insurance against retrial Council of State Governments Justice Center

24. Transparency 254 Counties have this information Council of State Governments Justice Center

25. Basics of Indigent Defense a. Client Perspective (Alex Bunin) b. Defender Perspective (Alex Bunin) c. County Perspective (Judge Burrows) The Texas Approach (Judge Keller & Jim Bethke) Evaluating Indigent Defense (Carl Reynolds & Alex Bunin) Panel Conversation Outline Council of State Governments Justice Center

26. What Counties (and States) Want From their Indigent Defense System Council of State Governments Justice Center

27. Measurement of General Outcomes versusPolicy Relevant Outcomes for Indigent Defense The Biggest Challenge: What is the value of higher quality defense on client and systemic outcomes? Compliance with standards and quality processes. Drawing baseline for measuring general trends and costs. Council of State Governments Justice Center

28. Efficiency Baseline: Harris County Has Huge Case Volume Council of State Governments Justice Center

29. Efficiency in Conflict with Quality: Assigned Counsel System Allows Overloading 255 Attorneys on Wheel 20,847 Cases Paid 9,302 Cases with an attorney whose caseload exceeded 150 felonies 18% Attorneys (45) were paid for assignment to more than 150 felonies 30% Of Cases 10% Of attorneys 10% Of attorneys 10% Of attorneys 20% Of Cases 10% Of attorneys 10% Of attorneys 17% Of Cases 10% Of attorneys 10% Of attorneys 12% Of Cases 30% Of attorneys 8% Of Cases 6% Of Cases 4% of Cases 3% of Cases Council of State Governments Justice Center

30. Quality: Public Defender Meets the ABA Ten Principles of an Effective Indigent Defense Delivery System Council of State Governments Justice Center

31. Quality: Meeting the Twelve Objectives in the State Grant Proposal Harris County 2011 Discretionary New.pdf

32. Key Outcomes for “Justice”- Can They Be Measured? Council of State Governments Justice Center Measureable outcomes showing effective defense: • Timely appointment • Bond outs • Dismissals • Acquittals • Reduction of charges • Length of sentences • Reversals • Connection to services • Lower recidivism

33. Justice: Public Defender has Higher Proportion of Dismissals and Lower Proportion of Convictions 372 PD Misdemeanor Mental Health Clients, February 2011 – June 2011 28 Pilot Study Clients, October 2010 – January 2011 119* Match Clients, October 2010 – January 2011 31% Misdemeanor A 69% Misdemeanor B 40% Misdemeanor A 60% Misdemeanor B 27% Misdemeanor A 72% Misdemeanor B 32 Misdemeanor Cases (1.3 cases per client) 451 Misdemeanor Cases (1.2 cases per client) 140 Misdemeanor Cases (1.1 cases per client) Client Outcomes 2 (7%) All Cases Dismissed 6 (5%) All Cases Dismissed 102 (27%) All Cases Dismissed 262 (70%) Total Convicted 26 (93%) Total Convicted 110 (92%) Total Convicted 8 (2%) Deferred (0%) Deferred 2 (2%) Deferred Public Defender Data system records and JIMS Records rom Harris County * Parts do not sum to total because 1 person had other outcome (fugitive)

34. Justice: More Public Defender Clients Acquitted at Trial 22% Of HCPD clients were found not guilty at trial and do not face a new trial Council of State Governments Justice Center

35. Justice (and Efficiency): Public Defender Saves Harris County One Third Bed Days Compared to Assigned Counsel HCPD Felony Clients Harris County Felonies with Assigned Counsel Harris County Felonies with Retained Counsel 33% More expense to incarcerate appointed attorney clients than HCPD per 100 Council of State Governments Justice Center

36. Learn About Your Justice Data Structure Council of State Governments Justice Center

37. Collaboration Builds Trust and Depends Upon It Council of State Governments Justice Center

38. More in Our Report in September Council of State Governments Justice Center

39. Thank You! Council of State Governments Justice Center Alex Bunin Chief Public Defender, Harris County (Houston) Texas alex.bunin@pdo.hctx.net Hon. Sharon Keller Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge; Chair, Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) Hon. Jon Burrows Bell County (TX) Judge; TIDC Member Jim Bethke Executive Director, TIDC jbethke@txcourts.gov Carl Reynolds Council of State Governments Justice Center (moderator) creynolds@csg.org