Missouri Court to Public Defenders: Just Keep Taking Cases

by Matt Kelley · 2009-04-16 05:37:00 UTC

Missouri ranks 49th in the country in per capita spending on indigent defense, and overwhelmed public defenders in the state's biggest cities have begun to decline cases - urging judges to appoint private counsel instead. But a Missouri appeals court this week ordered them to take all cases, saying rejecting cases is not constitutional.

It took years of struggle before several Missouri offices went for the "nuclear option" of refusing clients, leaving courts to determine how to find representation for the poor. While turning down indigent clients may sound irresponsible, accepting cases until an office can't function is a good way to ensure that no clients get adequate representation. And since courts are constitutionally required to find lawyers for everyone, they would have to resort to appointing counsel or finding public defenders from other counties.

Officials estimated that Missouri would need 192 additional public defenders over the next four years to meet its caseload. Deputy Director of state public defense Cathy Kelly said forcing public defenders to take so many cases they can't represent anyone effectively is also unconstitutional. “Lawyers are picking and choosing which corners to cut, and that is against the law," she said. "You cant short-circuit some cases and investigate others.”

And Missouri isn't alone in this crisis - or in attempting to draw the line before the state's indigent defense attorneys drown in cases and nobody gets adequate representation.

Miami-Dade public defenders have stopped accepting low-level felony cases because they couldn't handle the caseload if they worked "24 hours a day, 7 days a week," and an appeals court is considering their plight. Deep budget cuts in places like Washington state could lead to the undesirable position Miami and Missouri find themselves in.

But a new provision in the New York State budget for New York City public defenders offers a ray of hope. The law requires that public defense caseloads be capped by 2010, ensuring that overloads don't lead to a shutdown of the system.

And a new report from the bipartisan Constitution Project, five years in the making, finds public defense systems inadequate across the country and offers steps states can take to improve - like creating independent panels to oversee indigent defense statewide, capping public defender workloads and funding resources like investigators and forensic services to support public defenders.

"You should not have a better shot at justice, a better opportunity for an adequate defense, depending upon who arrests you in this country or where you were when you were arrested or what court system a defendant winds up in," Committee Co-chair Tim Lewis said. "This is a basic constitutional right."

...Robert Johnson, another of the committee's co-chairs, said, "Someone must stand with the accused against the might of the state."

That's a statement one might expect to hear from a defense attorney, but Johnson is a prosecutor who used to be head of the National District Attorneys Association.

"We're not there just to convict," said Johnson. "Our job is to find justice. And I need a person standing with the defendant to help me do that."

Hear NPR's report on the Constitution Project's findings.

Read the full report.

Matt Kelley is the Online Communications Manager at the Innocence Project and a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. Follow him on Twitter @mattjkelley.
PREVIOUS STORY:
The Coliseum Lights Up for New Mexico
NEXT STORY:
Make the Call! Stop the Torture of Special Needs Children in Massachusetts

COMMENTS (3)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.