Blog
MI
By David S. Udell – 05/07/10
It’s a big week for justice.
Three victories in court this week represent important steps forward in ongoing national efforts to strengthen the role of the courts, secure the right to counsel, and hold government accountable to the rule of law: Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York, Duncan v. State of Michigan, and City of NY v. Maul. Through a series of amicus briefs, the Brennan Center is proud to have played a role in each.
Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York is a landmark decision on the right to counsel, just issued by the New York Court of Appeals. In this suit, brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the law firm Schulte Roth & Zabel, the plaintiffs (individuals charged with crimes) argue that systemic deficiencies in how five New York counties provide indigent defense services mean that poor people are regularly denied effective representation in criminal proceedings.
The State had sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that the individuals charged with crimes should not be permitted to bring an affirmative lawsuit to end the deficiencies, but instead should wait for the legislature to improve the system, or, alternatively, bring post-conviction appeals in their own individual cases. The Brennan Center, in partnership with Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP, filed an amicus brief on behalf of former prosecutors arguing that the case should be allowed to proceed. The brief emphasized that the deficiencies alleged by the plaintiffs prevent prosecutors from being effective in their jobs and undermine the integrity of New York’s entire criminal justice system.
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Lippman rejected the State’s arguments and ruled that the case could go forward. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for the violation of their Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as guaranteed under Gideon v. Wainwright. Critically, the Complaint had alleged both that criminal defendants regularly lack representation during critical stages of their criminal cases, and that even when counsel is appointed, the counsel is so non-responsive and disengaged from cases as to leave defendants effectively without representation at all. The Court also acknowledged the arguments in the Brennan Center brief, explaining that “[t]his action properly understood, as it has been by distinguished members of the prosecution and defense bars alike, does not threaten but endeavors to preserve our means of criminal adjudication from the inevitably corrosive effects and unjust consequences of an unfair adversary process.” This case will now proceed in the trial court.
Also from the New York Court of Appeals this week is City of New York v. Maul. In Maul, the majority held that a trial court correctly authorized a class action to proceed on behalf of developmentally disabled children and young adults, represented by the law firm, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, against state agencies responsible for determining appropriate placements in light of the plaintiffs’ disabilities. In giving a voice to a class of plaintiffs seeking to compel corrective action by the agencies, the decision secures a role for the courts in holding state executive agencies accountable to the rule of law. In an amicus brief that the Brennan Center helped to shape, the Center joined a statewide coalition of organizations urging the Court to recognize the value of the class action device as an essential tool for confronting government inaction that violates individuals’ statutory rights.
And, finally, last Friday, Michigan’s highest court ruled that another right to counsel suit, Duncan v. Michigan, could proceed. This suit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, and the law firm Cravath Swaine & Moore, on behalf of indigent individuals accused of crimes in three Michigan counties, argued that Michigan’s provision of indigent defense services is constitutionally inadequate. In a succinct order, the Court declared that it is too early to dismiss a case in which plaintiffs allege that failures in the delivery of indigent defense services threaten denial of their constitutional right to counsel. This case, too, will now go forward in the lower court.
The Brennan Center submitted an amicus brief in Duncan, along with NAACP LDF, the Constitution Project, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Brennan Center was also involved early on in helping investigate the facts and construct the complaint that became the Duncan lawsuit. Additionally, the Brennan Center Strategic Fund (our 501C4 affiliate), has been performing an ongoing role in helping to guide the work of the Michigan Campaign for Justice in advancing a comprehensive reform effort in Michigan.
Together, these cases represent an important step toward ensuring equal justice and affirming courts’ vital role in protecting constitutional rights.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Criminal Justice, Community-Oriented Defender Network, Indigent Defense Reform
By Alicia Bannon – 05/04/10
[new BC letterhead]
A lawsuit challenging Michigan’s inadequate defense services for the poor received an important victory on Friday, when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the suit could go forward. Now the spotlight shifts to New York, where a similar lawsuit, Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York, is pending before New York’s highest court, which could issue a decision at any time. These two cases represent the cutting edge of an important national movement to ensure that individuals have adequate representation in criminal proceedings.
In Duncan v. State of Michigan, a group of indigent people charged with crimes, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, maintained that the indigent defense systems in three Michigan counties deny countless poor people the right to effective representation in their criminal trials, violating both the United States and Michigan constitutions.
According to the plaintiffs, these counties fail to provide even basic resources and safeguards to provide criminal defendants with competent representation – for example, attorneys lack supervision and training, there are no performance or eligibility standards to monitor their work, and there are no standards for attorney workload to ensure that attorneys have adequate time and resources to properly represent their clients.
The result is that poor defendants routinely lack representation that meets even the basic standards of the legal profession. And the consequences are grim – including wrongful convictions (with the real wrongdoers roaming free), excessive incarceration, and costly delays and appeals that burden prosecutors’ offices and courts.
Moreover, as the Brennan Center argued in an amicus brief to the Michigan Supreme Court, filed jointly with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, and the Constitution Project, many of the harms to the accused that result from inadequate representation cannot be remedied after-the-fact by post-conviction proceedings. For example, when attorney error leads to the wrongful denial of bail, no post-conviction review can undo the loss of liberty, as well as the resulting disruptions to work, family, and other important life commitments.
In allowing this suit to go forward, the Michigan Supreme Court implicitly recognized the vital role that the judicial branch plays when state action (or inaction) threatens systemic violations of constitutional rights. As the lower court explained in its earlier ruling [pdf],
“We cannot accept the proposition that the constitutional rights of our citizens, even those accused of crimes and too poor to afford counsel, are not deserving and worthy of any protection by the judiciary in a situation where the executive and legislative branches fail to comply with constitutional mandates and abdicate their constitutional responsibilities, either intentionally or neglectfully. . . . Judicial modesty does not equate to ignoring constitutional obligations.”
The current focus on reform extends far beyond Michigan. Across the country, in places that have forever failed to adequately guarantee the right to counsel, litigation, public education, exonerations, and community impatience are prompting states to act. Georgia, Montana, and Texas are three states with new statewide public defender systems. The progress isn’t perfect, of course; for example, Georgia has already backtracked on some of its reform efforts. But the progress is significant, and it is just the beginning.
Right now, all eyes are back on New York. Like Michigan, New York regularly denies poor defendants effective representation, particularly in counties outside of New York City. And like Michigan, New York has a legislature that has consistently failed to fix the problem. New York’s highest court should follow Michigan’s lead and ensure that all individuals – rich and poor – are guaranteed their constitutional right to counsel. When all else fails, it is up to our courts to ensure that justice is done.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Criminal Justice, Community-Oriented Defender Network, Indigent Defense Reform
By Brennan Center for Justice – 03/29/10
Mar. 29 - The State of Michigan produces more than its share of wrongful convictions, improper denials of bail, fees demanded when none are due, and defendants that languish in jail unnecessarily. All of these disproportionately harm African Americans, and are the result of an inadequate public defense system. Today, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief with the Michigan Supreme Court, siding with defendants of a stalled class-action lawsuit. The suit claims the State regularly denies poor defendants their right to counsel -- and even when defendants do get representation, their attorneys lack adequate training, supervision, and resources. The brief argues that these practices violate criminal defendants’ right to counsel, and that reviewing criminal convictions after-the-fact cannot fully remedy the harms caused by ineffective representation.
Tags: Justice, Racial Justice, Criminal Justice, Indigent Defense Reform
By Maggie Barron – 03/10/08
The media was atwitter over the weekend
with possible solutions to the Florida/Michigan primary problem. Can the Democratic
Party disenfranchise all those voters merely to prove a point? Did the states
miscalculate so wildy that there's a real chance they won't be able to seat any
delegates in one of the most important conventions in years? And who is going
to pay for another round of elections? As someone who works on voting rights,
it's hard to argue that those Florida and Michigan voters (who had
nothing to do with scheduling their rogue primaries) should be shut out of the
process. But the kid in me, reared on playgrounds and games like handball and
freeze tag, knows you can't change the rules in the middle of the game.
One solution bandied about by the Florida
Democratic Party, according to the Los Angeles Times, is a vote-by-mail
election, which would cost significantly less than another traditional primary.
"Under this scenario," the article says, "ballots would be mailed out to all of
Florida's
approximately 4.7 million registered Democrats in May or June," costing between
$4-$6 million (much less than the estimated $25 million for another traditional
primary).
But trying to implement a vote-by-mail
scheme so quickly is not the solution to get the Florida Democratic Party out
of this mess. Vote-by-mail might seem easier, and it certainly is cheaper, but sending
ballots out to 4.7 million voters is complicated and subject to errors that
could easily compound Florida's
primary woes.
Consider California, where officials were still processing
and counting vote-by-mail ballots weeks after its primary. According to the New
York Times, about 4.1 million Californians voted by mail. The practice
can be easier for voters, but it is labor-intensive for registrars and staff,
who must open all the mail, authenticate it, and sort it by precinct. In California, voting
officials literally ironed thousands of ballots that had been crumpled or
creased in the mail, in order to feed them into the vote-counting machines (the
appropriate setting to iron out a ballot, just so you know, is apparently
"silk.") This is part of the reason why,
two weeks after Super Tuesday, California
still had some 800,000 ballots to count.
And that's only considering the
vote-by-mail ballots that actually reach
eligible voters. In California
on Super Tuesday, the Election Protection Hotline reported numerous calls from confused voters who had requested vote-by-mail ballots
but had never received them. Project
Vote reminds us that vote-by-mail can only be as dependable as the mail
service itself, which is inconsistent in low-income and densely populated urban
areas, areas with non-traditional addresses, and when people move. So for people who live in housing
developments or remote urban areas, and who get there mail less reliably than
others, this is not a great solution.
Linking your ability to vote with the post
office's ability to reach you is a dangerous proposition. Voter
caging, the practice of sending out mass mailings and using the returned
mail to challenge voters' registrations, is notoriously inaccurate, which is
why there are currently bills pending in Congress to ban the practice. Voter
registration lists can be rife with simple errors in addresses that can make
mail undeliverable, and mail
often goes undelivered even when the voter at the address may be registered
and perfectly eligible.
While vote-by-mail shows promise as a means
of conducting elections in the future, it can't be implemented as quickly as
many election officials want it to be. As voting technology expert Larry Norden
explained in testimony in Ohio (which has been considering a vote-by-mail plan
for the November elections), delivering high-volume mailings in a secure,
accessible way is no easy feat, and it should not be adopted without good
planning and public education, especially right before a critical election (and
certainly not for a slap-dash do-over election like we may have in Florida.)
The cost of a vote-by-mail election is even
more attractive to the Florida Democratic Party, since it is getting no love, or
money, from DNC chair Howard Dean or Governor Charlie Crist. But the truth
is there will be no easy, or cheap, solution here. Unfortunately it will be
voters who will in some way pay for the party's mistake.
Tags: Democracy, Voting Rights & Elections, Other Voter List Issues
Permalink