T - Voice For The Defense Online

SB7--The FairDefense ActCourtl~o~~sesacross Texas are ab~m with disc~~ssion about SB7- The Pair Defense Act. IIIorder to ~~ndcrstand the fu~~damw~td change Illat SB7 represents it is important to Look atthe pmqe of this bill in its historical conlext.The Fair Defense Act, pmed in the 2000-2001 Texas legislative session was the res~llt ofyea~'Sof work by myriad interested groups. 111 1994, he State Bar of Texas created the committee+Legal Services to the Poor in Criolioal hlatters (Legal Services Committee) I was appointed to thatcomn~itlec and sened alongs~de Chmitman Allan Butcl~er and V m Chair Catherine Grecnc BurnettIt was this comnrittee that undertook the job of snrve)iug crimmal defcnsc attorneys, plosecutols,and judges p~residing oxrer crinuval cases. The su~wy focused on indigent 'eprcsentation. TheLegal Scnkes Committee issued a final repol? undm the title, "M~~ting GideonS Trompet: The Cnsisin Indigent C~im~nal Defense in Texas," prepxed by AUan Butcher and Midlael K, Moore.Late, in 1999, Texas Appleseed, a non-profit public-intemt law center, under the helm of BIUBardall, begnn an actnd review ofi~~digeut representation in Tew. Benrddl and his tam visitedlxndomly selected counties to see for tl~emselves how the poor were represented in cri~ind cases.The Appleseed report echoed the hdings and co~~clnsions by the Legal Se~vices cornmiltee. hougtllese.MESSAGEA lack of resources sedously undernu~~ed lawyds abdify to represent poor clients.Defense attorneys assigned to indigeot clients felt that they were subsidizing theco~~nty's obligation to provide legal representation.III many counties the political ~I~IIIE of conrt appointme~~ts gave the in~pression thatcertain lawye~s were favorites of the court and others were not.Defense attornejs reported being refused appointments becawe they did not contributeto the judge's campaign.Prosecuton dcscnbed a gtou~p of appoi~ted defe~~se counsel t1mt only wanted topled their appomted clients and w011ld new go to t~ial. (The State Bar recentlyissued an etlucs opinion stating that it is unetl~ical for an attorney to be qpointed toan ~ndigent defendan! only for the pulyose of l~a\riving the person plead guillj!)49% of judges reported that tl~eir judicial peels sometimes appoint co1111sel becausetiley lwe the reputation for nlomg the cses regardless of the q~~.diQ of the defeose.Based on these dawnling hdiigs, r\ppleseed and the Legal Sewices Committee made seve~drecomn~e~~dations:The State of Texas must make a commiln~ento h~nd indigent representation.The State lnust den~~e and adopt professmnal staudards for representation. There m11st be cr~teria for determining i~ldigeot status aput from wvl~elhera pelson posted bd.There n~ust be adequate and timely co~opensnion to lawyers.The mst be a gumntee of access to necess;u). support services.Data must be collected and monitored.As we dl knoy conumttees come and committees go Couuninee fi1~1mgs and concl~~sions arereached and ignored. ff public opinion lesurrects the same issue of concern - anotl~er committeeis appointed. More findings and co~~cl~~sions ale mched and ignored. But this time there \va.s adifference. Tlus time there was George \V. BIISII.6 VOICE FOR THE DEFENSE WWW.TCDLX%COM SEPTEMBER 2001