Jonathan Sacks Executive Director Wayne County Criminal Advocacy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
jonathan sacks
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Jonathan Sacks Executive Director Wayne County Criminal Advocacy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 16, 2023 6 likes •407 views

Jonathan Sacks Executive Director Wayne County Criminal Advocacy Program September 2015 Background Counties Studied: Alpena, Bay, Chippewa, Grand Traverse, Jackson, Marquette, Oakland, Ottawa, Shiawassee and Wayne In the year-long study of

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Jonathan Sacks

Executive Director

Wayne County Criminal Advocacy Program September 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Background

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Counties Studied:

Alpena, Bay, Chippewa, Grand Traverse, Jackson, Marquette, Oakland, Ottawa, Shiawassee and Wayne

slide-4
SLIDE 4

In the year-long study of ten representative counties, NLADA concluded that none are constitutionally adequate and Michigan ranked 44th

  • ut of all 50 states in per

capita indigent defense spending.

slide-5
SLIDE 5
slide-6
SLIDE 6
slide-7
SLIDE 7

Advisory Commission findings – June 2012

  • Michigan’s counties offer an

“uncoordinated, 83-county patchwork quilt” of public defense systems.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Advisory Commission findings – June 2012

▪There is no data or transparency to show if taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently or effectively.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Advisory Commission findings – June 2012

▪There are no statewide standards to define or ensure constitutionally adequate defense counsel.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Signing of Public Act 93 of 2013

Michiganradio.org

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission

Jim Fisher, Chair Cletus Smith Michael Puerner Bill Swor Shela Motley Joe Baumann

  • Hon. Thomas Boyd

Jon Campbell Nancy Diehl John Shea Frank Eaman Kevin Oeffner Gary Walker David Schuringa Brandy Robinson Richard Lindsey

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Nancy Diehl Frank Eaman Brandy Robinson Bill Swor

Wayne County MIDC Commissioners

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act

▪Collects and compiles data for the review of indigent defense services in Michigan

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act

▪Creates minimum standards

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act

▪Works with counties to design plans to meet the standards and measures the performance of counties in providing public defense services

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act

▪Awards state funded grants to county systems to fund the compliance plans and bring systems into compliance with the new minimum standards

slide-17
SLIDE 17

MIDC Survey

slide-18
SLIDE 18
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Initial Standards Proposed

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Standard 1 – Education and Training

slide-21
SLIDE 21

“The only area of the state that partially complies with the training principle is Wayne County.”

NLADA Race to the Bottom, 2008 Page 79

slide-22
SLIDE 22

The counties highlighted have reported some requirement of CLE to stay on assigned counsel list.

slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • Knowledge of law, scientific

evidence, defenses, technology.

  • Basic skills for new attorneys.
  • 12 hours of CLE for all.
slide-24
SLIDE 24

Q: Will the 12 hours of training count towards my training requirements to stay on assigned counsel lists in other counties?

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Standard 2 – Initial Interview

slide-26
SLIDE 26

“Initial interviews with defendants (particularly those in custody) are frequently conducted in court (or in the “bullpen” – a cell behind the courtroom), just prior to a hearing held within days of the district court arraignment.”

NLADA Race to the Bottom, 2008 Page 64

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • Meet in-custody client within 72

hours

  • Confidential meeting
  • Client competency assessment
slide-28
SLIDE 28

Standard 3 – Investigation / Experts

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • Reasonable investigation required
  • Use experts and investigators when

appropriate

  • Continuously evaluate
slide-30
SLIDE 30
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Standard 4 – Counsel at First Appearance

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Rothgery v. Gillespie County., Tex., 554 U.S. 191 (2008)

slide-33
SLIDE 33

“Counsel shall be assigned as soon as the defendant is determined to be eligible for indigent criminal defense services [ ]…… The representation includes, but is not limited to the arraignment on the complaint and warrant or the setting of a case specific interim bond while defendant is in custody….. [ ]” MIDC Proposed Standard 4

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Standards Proposed by MIDC

Drafts submitted to committees Committees work through and revise drafts Final drafts submitted to entire MIDC

Step 1

MIDC finalizes proposals Final proposals submitted for public review and comment

Step 2

Public Hearing

  • n proposed

standards Proposals submitted to Michigan Supreme Court Supreme Court has 6 months to adopt standards

Step 3

Compliance

Step 4

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Feedback…

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Future Minimum Standards

  • Delivery of services is independent
  • f the judiciary. MCL 780.991(1)(a).
slide-37
SLIDE 37

Future Minimum Standards

  • Workload is controlled to permit

effective representation. MCL 780.991(2)(b).

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Future Minimum Standards

  • An attorney has the training and

experience that matches the complexity of the allegations against their client. MCL 780.991(2)(c).

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Find out more at michiganidc.gov

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Jonathan Sacks

Executive Director

jsacks@michiganidc.gov 517-899-1354