Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

sponsored by
News


PUBLIC DEFENDER REFORM: Officials agree on need for changes

Progress made at court hearing, but issues in rural areas remain

For the third time in less than a year, the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday held a public hearing to consider proposed changes to the state's public defender systems.

This time, however, there was more consensus than controversy, with public defenders, prosecutors, and county managers all essentially agreeing on the need to implement indigent defense reforms.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • Study urges Nevada and nine other states to take care in handling economy
  • Police serve search warrant at Hell's Angels clubhouse
  • Police serve search warrant at Hell's Angels clubhouse
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • Cada wins World Series of Poker championship
  • Cada wins World Series of Poker championship
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields
  • North Las Vegas motorcyclist killed in collision while racing, police say
  • Las Vegas police make arrest in 2008 slaying




  • Federal Public Defender Franny Forsman said the discussions brought state courts a step closer to a "cultural sea change."

    "But that's going to take time," she said.

    In January, the Supreme Court ordered major reforms to ensure indigent defendants get adequate legal representation, the end result of what then-Chief Justice William Maupin called "the most important examination of the criminal justice system" in Nevada in recent years.

    But a coalition of rural judges, county managers, and prosecutors objected to some of the changes, complaining that the justices didn't get enough input from all sides before issuing the order.

    The Supreme Court responded in March by delaying implementation of the changes.

    Most in dispute was the wording of performance standards for indigent-defense lawyers, and whether all the standards were requirements or mere guidelines. Rural court officials also questioned the feasibility of completely removing judges from the selection of court-appointed defenders.

    An indigent defense commission formed last year by the court reconvened to iron out a compromise.

    The commission was created after a Review-Journal series in March 2007 about flaws in Clark County's indigent defense system.

    At Tuesday's public hearing, Forsman and Clark County Chief Deputy District Attorney Nancy Becker suggested revised language for the performance standards, agreeable to both defenders and prosecutors.

    Forsman and Becker identified only five relatively minor issues still in dispute, including whether defendants should always be advised of their right to appeal a conviction.

    Chief Justice Mark Gibbons praised the public defender and the prosecutor for their efforts.

    "Thank you for meeting together to try to work these issues out and to locate areas of controversy," Gibbons said.

    The performance standards were ordered in part out of concern that overburdened public defenders aren't able to spend sufficient time on cases.

    Lawyers in Clark County's public defender's office have an average annual caseload of more than 350 felonies and gross misdemeanors. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association recommends a limit of 150 such cases.

    As mandated by the Supreme Court, Clark and Washoe counties have commissioned caseload studies that will be used to determine whether caseload limits are needed.

    Clark County has taken other steps towards fulfilling the Supreme Court's mandate, one of them launching the Office of Appointed Counsel to oversee a system for appointing private lawyers to many indigent cases.

    The Supreme Court is now in a position to issue a revised order based on the proposals made at yesterday's hearing, which took place via teleconference in Carson City and Las Vegas.

    But the indigent defense debate is far from over.

    In September, the Supreme Court will hold another public hearing about issues facing rural counties.

    Seventh Judicial District Court Judge Dan Papez said at Tuesday's hearing that the court will have to consider some thorny issues.

    "It's becoming increasingly difficult for rural counties to fund indigent defense," Papez said. "It's a state responsibility, not a local responsibility."

    Contact reporter Alan Maimon at amaimon@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0404.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 11 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    stevens wrote on July 04, 2009 10:08 AM: who cares about people that are in trouble they are already guilty before any thing else so we should not waste our we should let metro just kill them..;.


    Report abuse

    undr cvr wrote on July 03, 2008 01:02 PM: The continuance of a non functioning standard established under Strickland v Washington and a worthless order by the Nevada Supreme Court on January 4th, 2008 remains a problem that as late as the July 2, article (see above link) is only being debated.

    How the US Attorney and the Department of Justice can continue to look on amid glaring violations of Constitutional proportion and official misconduct, is unbelievable and needs be made a national issue not unlike the Nifong matter as public officials under color of law should be made more accountable not only for their actions in failing to uphold Constitutional Guarantees, but evading responsibility.

    Willful error is more than plain in this matter concerning the state of indigent defense in Nevada.

    A federal order to comply NOW under established provisions and to address prior cases as far back as 2000 in an independent investigation for any and all violations for all cases involving indigents (particularly plea agreements where due process may have been circumvented) regardless of fiscal consequenses to the state as the result of their actions.


    Report abuse

    Geezelouise wrote on July 02, 2008 03:42 PM: undr cvr- I am in total agreement. This is a serious issue that can have far reaching effects. Every one of those indigent defendants has the right to sue the state because they did not get their constitutionally mandated standard of defense.

    Our state is already facing a huge financial crisis, and this one issue alone could cost the state millions of dollars.

    Roberto Miranda got 5 million just a few years ago. How many more of these can this state afford?


    Report abuse

    undr cvr wrote on July 02, 2008 11:06 AM: Ive never seen such idiot comments on a subject that is very serious.

    The matter is so serious that there are federal investigtions into willful criminal pattern and practice of denial of Constitutional rights of indigents including coercion of plea agreements with the public defender and district attorneys teaming up on indigents to obtain pleas involving cases as far back as before 2000.

    The fact that despite the seriousness of the matter the implementation of a system to uphold 6th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights are still being discussed while indigents still suffer from the ineptitude and willful abuses of state justice officials is unbelievable.

    How long are these idiots going to have to debate to arrive at compliance of already established federal Constitutional statutes?

    This is not a sovereign issue for a state to do as it see fits.


    Report abuse

    Mike Ault wrote on July 02, 2008 10:13 AM: The title of Public Defender makes no sense. Law enforcement protects the public! They should be referred to as "Lawyers for the Indigent Accused!"


    Report abuse

    Debs doctor wrote on July 02, 2008 09:43 AM: Deb


    Why so bitter. I have been in Vegas for 40 years and have never had a run in with the law. It seems like you do.


    Is it the police or your antisocial behavior. We can correct this with the proper medications.


    Report abuse

    Debs doctor wrote on July 02, 2008 09:42 AM: Deb

    Why so bitter. I have been in Vegas for 40 years and have never had a run in with the law. It seems like you do.

    Is it the police or your antisocial behavior. We can correct this with the proper medications.


    Report abuse

    Debs doctor wrote on July 02, 2008 09:42 AM: Deb
    Why so bitter. I have been in Vegas for 40 years and have never had a run in with the law. It seems like you do.
    Is it the police or your antisocial behavior. We can correct this with the proper medications.


    Report abuse

    Cheif wrote on July 02, 2008 09:33 AM: Ditto ditto


    Report abuse

    Deb wrote on July 02, 2008 07:13 AM: Right. If you stop abusing the people you wouldn't need so many cops, judges and court defenders.

    The citizens don't stand a fair chance in this State.

    Time to sell out.


    Read All Comments