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

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion
Jan. 08, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Public defenders

There is no post-holiday sluggishness at the Nevada Supreme Court. On Friday, just days after justices acted to prevent judges from arbitrarily hiding civil lawsuits to protect the wealthy and powerful, the court ordered sweeping changes to the state's indigent defense system.

As with the standards regarding sealed lawsuits, the new rules covering public defenders were issued in response to a 2007 Review-Journal investigation. The newspaper's series uncovered abuses by private attorneys assigned to indigent cases, conflicts resulting from judges selecting indigent counsel and a lack of oversight of attorney qualifications and performance.

The court order addressed each of those problems, stating that judges must never play a role in the assignment of public defenders, creating a statewide body to oversee criminal defense and establishing a rigid list of procedures for indigent attorneys to follow in every criminal and juvenile delinquency case they handle. All of these measures will help ensure poor Nevadans accused of a crime receive the competent counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.

"This is the first instance in which a (state) Supreme Court has addressed so many crisis points in one order," said David Carroll, director of research for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and a member of the special commission that made the recommendations to the high court.

Most Popular Stories
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
  • J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
  • EDITORIAL: It's now illegal to carry cash?
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: To boost revenue, repeal smoking law



    • Just as important, the Supreme Court delayed imposing caseload caps on public defenders. Instead, Clark and Washoe counties were ordered to complete caseload studies by July 15.

    It's one thing for the Supreme Court to set forth administrative practices in the criminal justice system, but it's entirely another for justices to assume control of county pursestrings and order taxpayers to hire more lawyers. Caseloads are a product of a variety of factors, not the least of which is the compensation awarded to counsel for the indigent. Clark County's public defenders -- like all Clark County workers -- have some of the highest salaries and best retirement benefits in the nation.

    There's only so much taxpayer money to go around, and Clark County doesn't have any to spare. Its discretionary budget blown to bits to bail out the sinking University Medical Center, the county now faces a $42 million budget deficit because of lower-than-expected revenue growth.

    Mr. Carroll's organization would have Clark County more than double the size of the public defender's office. Because the county has blindly allowed personnel costs to run so high, administrators can barely afford to add a couple of staff attorneys per year. Tripling outsourcing to private attorneys won't come cheap, either.

    When Clark County conducts its caseload study, it should clearly define the cost to the public of various thresholds and identify which government offices would have to be closed to accommodate them.

    Caseload caps aren't part of the solution to what ails the state's indigent defense system. Better cost management is.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 13 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:

    Breadcrumbs wrote on January 09, 2008 03:49 PM: Instrument: 20000905-00565 Book/Instr: 20000905 / 565
    Document Type: Agreement - Subordinate Recorded: 09/05/2000 09:49:13 Pgs: 4
    ReRecorded: N Remarks:
    Requestor: FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

    1st Party: WESTFIELD EYE CENTER
    WESTFIELD, KENNETH C
    SHEARING-WESTFIELD EYE INSTITUTE
    2nd Party: PRISMS OPTICAL LP
    3rd Party: NEW VENTURES CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CO

    Legal Description: ParcelNum: 16312103004
    References:
    Tot Value: $ Property Value: $0.00
    RPTT: $ Exmpt Code: Percent: % ATag:
    ---------------------------------------Instrument: 20000503-00681 Book/Instr: 20000503 / 681
    Document Type: Judgment - Satisfaction Recorded: 05/03/2000 11:59:19 Pgs: 7
    ReRecorded: N Remarks:
    Requestor: LELAND EUGENE BACKUS & ASSOC LTD

    1st Party: WESTFIELD, KENNETH C
    2nd Party: WESTFIELD, CATHALENE J

    Legal Description:
    References:
    Tot Value: $ Property Value: $0.00
    RPTT: $ Exmpt Code: Percent: % ATag:

    Case #'s A426051 (filed 10/24/2000 - Vega); A399899 (filed 2/26/99 - Huffaker) and A486307 (filed 5/27/2004 - view all positions)


    Takealook wrote on January 09, 2008 03:25 PM: Justice Maupin, will E. Miriam or any of the other Shearings be going with yourself and Opthamologist Kenneth Westfield to Haiti????

    163-12-103-004 &

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Feb-11-Sun-2007/news/11454532.html


    undr cvr wrote on January 09, 2008 10:35 AM: Justice Maupin lead as chief justice a 72 page order that is the equivalent of an admission of guilt (when evaluted together with all the other judicial issues)concerning failure to protect indigent rights.

    Today, less than a week later he wants to quit the Supreme Court.

    This calls for deeper investigation into reasons why.

    The public needs to come forward with anything relevant to this issue.


    CleanUnderwear? wrote on January 08, 2008 10:32 PM: The long run should be the endrun!!!
    Yes, give them rope gentlemen. Give them rope! Preferably elevator cables.


    investigate wrote on January 08, 2008 01:44 PM: "This is the first instance in which a (state) Supreme Court has addressed so many crisis points in one order," said David Carroll, director of research for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and a member of the special commission that made the recommendations to the high court.

    David Carroll was Michael Cherry's court clerk during the time that the public defender was first exposed for having major problems in 2003.

    They both have a common interest and they both need to look good after years of burying the problem and letting the problem get worse while hiding facts from the general public.

    Beware that this could just be a dog and pony show to elevate themselves out of a nasty situation.

    The good news is something good may come out of it all in the long run.


    endrun wrote on January 08, 2008 11:36 AM: 'Better cost management is.'?

    It's much more than that. Management PERIOD needs to be improved. It's not just about money, but the constitutional rights of the indigent. Caseload management to ensure effective assistance of counsel and equal justice are given to every defendant with no compromise will also monitor costs. The January 4th order spells out minimal standards that must be adhered to. The public defender's office itself has to take responsibility to ensure that happens.
    Paralegals preparing for the bar and/or criminal justice could review cases to ensure constitutional guarantees are not violated according to the standards of both the Jan 4 order and Strickland and other case law and assist public defenders and the office of the public defender at a rate less than entry level public defenders.
    The public defenders office needs to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest with the district attorney and no compromise to constitutional guarantees in preparation and negotiation of plea agreements and admission of evidence.
    If enforcement procedures are not implemented to guarantee constitutional rights by the book and now pursuant to the Jan 4 order IMMEDIATELY and not after caseload and budget issues are resolved (as there is normally a wait and see mentality), federal intervention is eminent.


    douglas wrote on January 08, 2008 11:34 AM: "proper legal representation"... that must be those 10-20 year stretches on taxprayer funded "death row". those with multiple "appeals".

    what happened to swift justice ?


    John F wrote on January 08, 2008 10:22 AM: Leave it to the RJ editors to place money over lives. In their other editorial today they argue for more and speedier executions. Presumably those being executed will be those who didn't have access to proper legal representation. That's generally the case with capital punishment.

    The right to representation by counsel in any case involving a loss of liberty is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. The constitution says nothing about it being acceptable to suspend its enforcement if the local populace decides it would rather spend its money in some other fashion. Like sending it back to Arkansas, for instance.


    BR wrote on January 08, 2008 08:42 AM: To xxx

    STFU


    Lee wrote on January 08, 2008 07:07 AM: XXX,

    When are you going to learn to use your computer so we can stop having to read your useless rants over, and over, and over again?


    Read All Comments