Client Choice Program, This Study Would Not Have Been Possible
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Texas Indigent Defense Commission provides financial and technical support to counties to develop and maintain quality, cost-effective indigent defense systems that meet the needs of local communities and the requirements of the Constitution and state law. The purpose of this website is to provide access to the data that drives the Commission’s work as well as information about indigent defense. http://www.tidc.texas.gov The Justice Management Institute is a non-profit organization committed to promoting Justice Systems That Work. Based in Arlington, Virginia, JMI works collaboratively with justice professionals to shape systems that are responsive, outcome-driven, fairer, more equitable, and more efficient. Since 1992, it has helped justice systems to achieve excellence in leadership, operations, management, and services by conducting rigorous research on emerging and persistent issues, providing education and training on evidence-based practices, and delivering in-depth technical assistance to help courts and justice systems implement effective strategies. JMI is known for innovative approaches and solutions for advancing knowledge and practice in the administration of justice. http://www.jmijustice.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS On behalf of The Justice Management Institute (JMI) staff, I would like to acknowledge the Comal County District Court judges, the County Court at Law judges, the Justices of the Peace and Magistrates of Comal County, and members of the defense bar in Comal County. Without their commitment to the project and willingness to discuss their experiences with the Client Choice Program, this study would not have been possible. In addition, there are several members of the project team who made significant contributions to both the design and implementation of Client Choice: Jim Bethke, Executive Director, Texas Indigent Defense Commission Edwin Colfax, Grant Manager, Texas Indigent Defense Commission Norman Lefstein, Professor of Law and Dean Emeritus, Indiana University, Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indianapolis, Indiana Steven Schulhofer, Robert B. McKay Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, New York, New York The thoughtful review of and input on the study findings provided by these individuals was invaluable in helping JMI produce this final report. M. Elaine Borakove President, The Justice Management Institute Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Defining the Client Choice Model ................................................................................................................ 2 Client Choice versus Defense Vouchers ................................................................................................... 3 Arguments For and Against: The Legal and Policy Foundation for Client Choice .................................. 4 In Support of Client Choice .................................................................................................................. 4 Critiques of Client Choice..................................................................................................................... 5 The Client Choice Site: Comal County, Texas ............................................................................................. 6 Study Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Process Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 9 Outcome Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 9 Study Sample .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Sampling of Lawyers Participating in Appointed Counsel Program .................................................. 10 Defendant Characteristics ................................................................................................................... 11 The Implementation of Client Choice ......................................................................................................... 14 Planned versus Actual Implementation ................................................................................................... 14 Magistrate Intake at Jail ...................................................................................................................... 14 Application for Eligibility and Selection of Counsel .......................................................................... 15 Formal Assignment of Counsel by the Court ...................................................................................... 16 First Appearance and Ongoing Adjudication ...................................................................................... 18 Stakeholder Perceptions of Changes in Defense Representation ............................................................ 18 Participation in Client Choice ............................................................................................................. 18 Assignments by Lawyer in Client Choice ........................................................................................... 18 Appointed Counsel Compensation under Client Choice .................................................................... 20 Changes in the Quality of Indigent Defense Representation in Client Choice ................................... 23 Impact of Client Choice in Comal County .................................................................................................. 26 Client Choice Impact on the Quality of Representation ......................................................................... 27 Timeliness and Length of Meetings .................................................................................................... 27 Responsiveness to Meeting Requests ................................................................................................. 29 Intensity of Lawyers’ Work on Behalf of Defendants ........................................................................ 31 Case Outcomes........................................................................................................................................ 31 Procedural Justice ................................................................................................................................... 33 Fairness ............................................................................................................................................... 33 Advocacy for the Defendant’s Interests .............................................................................................. 35 Influence of Defendant in the Case ..................................................................................................... 37 Transparency ....................................................................................................................................... 38 System Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Impact on Case Processing Times ...................................................................................................... 41 Impact on Costs ................................................................................................................................... 42 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................. 42 Current Understanding about the Implementation of Client Choice ................................................... 43 Current Understanding about the Impacts of Client Choice ............................................................... 44 Exploring Other Possible Systemic Outcomes ................................................................................... 45 Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix A. Constitutional Argument Regarding Client Choice ............................................................. 47 Appendix B. Original Plan for Implementing Client Choice ..................................................................... 50 Appendix C. Advisory Panel Members ...................................................................................................... 57 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted in 1966, was not only based on the legal rights in force in the United States and other nations but has also framed the strengthening and establishment of legal systems of countries throughout the globe. Overall, Article 14, In the determination of any criminal charge quoted in the sidebar, sets part of the standard for the against him, everyone shall be entitled to the rights of the accused in a criminal justice system. following minimum guarantees, in full Justice systems must