Indigent Defendants Research Articles

The long-term impact of debt relief for indigent defendants in a misdemeanor court

US courts regularly assess fines, fees, and costs against criminal defendants. Court-related debt can cause continuing court involvement and incarceration, not because of new crimes, but because of unpaid financial obligations. We conducted an experiment with 606 people found guilty of misdemeanors in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. Study participants were randomly selected to receive relief from all current and prior fines and fees assessed for criminal charges in the county. Fee relief reduced jail bookings 21 mo after randomization and the effect persisted over 44 mo of follow-up. Although fee relief reduced incarceration, financial sanctions had no effect on indicators of lawbreaking. Instead, the control group (who obtained no relief from fines and fees) were rearrested at significantly higher rates because of open arrest warrants for nonpayment. These results indicate the long-term and criminalizing effects of legal debt, supporting claims that financial sanctions disproportionately harm low-income defendants while contributing little to public safety.

The Stress of Injustice: Public Defenders and the Frontline of American Inequality

Abstract Fairness in the criminal legal system is unattainable without effective legal representation of indigent defendants, yet we know little about the experience of attorneys who do this critical work. Using semi-structured interviews, our study investigated occupational stress in a sample of 78 attorneys representing indigent clients across the United States. We show how the chronic stressors experienced at work culminate in what we define as the stress of injustice: the social and psychological demands of working in a punitive system with laws and practices that target and punish those who are the most disadvantaged. Respondents positioned their professional stress around structural, not individual, aspects of the American criminal legal system, specifically punitive excess, underfunding of indigent defense, and the criminalization of mental illness and substance use. Working within these interrelated structural constraints makes public defenders highly vulnerable to stress and attrition.

Alone in the Lone Star State: How a Lack of Centralized Public Defender Offices Fails Rural Indigent Defendants

The criminal justice system is stacked against indigent defendants. The disadvantages indigent defendants face are exacerbated when mixed with the unique qualities of rural America. For instance, rural court-assigned attorneys are often picked through ad hoc systems by the very judges these attorneys must appear in front of, creating a judicial conflict of interest. The financial realities of rural public defense work often force counsel to manage a private practice while also balancing court-appointed cases. To the extent integral resources like investigators or experts are present in rural spaces, they are seldom used. This Note highlights the way Texas organizes its public defense system as an example of how the unique properties of rural America interact with our criminal justice system to create substandard representation. As a solution, this Note proposes that rural counties should pool together resources to create centralized, regional public defender offices that serve multiple counties. Centralized offices, rather than private attorneys selected by judges to represent indigent defendants on an ad hoc basis, would sever judicial conflicts of interest; they would allow defenders to focus on their indigent clients rather than be forced to manage a separate practice; and they would have the ability to retain in-house services like investigators. Because establishing these centralized offices requires increased state funding and political will, this Note concludes by analyzing impact litigation lawsuits in several states that successfully improved rural public defense.

The Public Defender Movement in the Age of Mass Incarceration: Georgia’s Experience

Focusing on the efforts of the Southern Center for Human Rights, this article offers a grassroots history of the creation of the first statewide public defender in the State of Georgia in 2003. Whereas federal court litigation to improve indigent defense failed to achieve lasting reform, a shift in tactics toward “rebellious localism,” characterized by state court lawsuits against county and city officials, succeeded in prodding lawmakers to create a new framework for delivering legal services to indigent defendants. This model of legal change was effective in documenting structural flaws and creating momentum for reform. Yet other conditions—such as front-end criminal law policies and funding decisions—continued to shape the actual quality of representation received by poor people.

The Problematic Structure of Indigent Defense Delivery

The national conversation about criminal justice reform largely ignores the critical need for structural reforms in the provision of indigent defense. In most parts of the country, decisions about how to structure the provision of indigent defense are made at the local level, resulting in a fragmented patchwork of different indigent defense delivery systems. In most counties, if an indigent criminal defendant gets representation at all, it comes from assigned counsel or flat-fee contract lawyers rather than public defenders. In those assigned-counsel and flat-fee contract systems, the lawyers representing indigent defendants have financial incentives to get rid of assigned criminal cases as quickly as possible. Those incentives fuel mass incarceration because the lawyers put less time into each case than their public defender counterparts and achieve poorer outcomes for their clients. Moreover, empirical research shows that assigned-counsel and flat-fee contract systems are economically more costly to the public fisc than public defender systems. This Article collects data from across the country to show how prevalent assigned- counsel and contract systems remain, explains why arguments in favor of substantial reliance on the private bar to provide for indigent defense are outdated, argues that more states need to move toward state-structured public defender models, and outlines how it is politically possible for stakeholders to get there.

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

THE MANY LIVES OF CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY

Criminalizing Poverty: The Consequences of Court Fees in a Randomized Experiment

Court-related fines and fees are widely levied on criminal defendants who are frequently poor and have little capacity to pay. Such financial obligations may produce a criminalization of poverty, where later court involvement results not from crime but from an inability to meet the financial burdens of the legal process. We test this hypothesis using a randomized controlled trial of court-related fee relief for misdemeanor defendants in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. We find that relief from fees does not affect new criminal charges, convictions, or jail bookings after 12 months. However, control respondents were subject to debt collection efforts at significantly higher rates that involved new warrants, additional court debt, tax refund garnishment, and referral to a private debt collector. Despite significant efforts at debt collection among those in the control group, payments to the court totaled less than 5 percent of outstanding debt. The evidence indicates that court debt charged to indigent defendants neither caused nor deterred new crime, and the government obtained little financial benefit. Yet, fines and fees contributed to a criminalization of low-income defendants, placing them at risk of ongoing court involvement through new warrants and debt collection.

Financial Sanctions in Pennsylvania

While potential adverse consequences of carrying criminal justice debt are well documented, less is known empirically about the degree to which both assessed amounts reflect ability to pay and how repayment success varies for individuals with dissimilar financial means. This study uses fine, cost, and restitution imposition and collection data from the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) that spans a ten year period to examine whether there are differences in assessment and outstanding debt balances between defendants with private counsel and defendants with public defenders. To address the research aims, this study utilizes straightforward descriptive and bivariate statistics. Results indicate that a typical defendant with a public defender is assessed less in fine, cost, and/or restitution than a typical defendant with private counsel, suggesting that some courts are factoring in a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing assessments. Nonetheless, a typical defendant represented by a public defender is unable to fully repay their assessment within a decade. This is in stark contrast to a typical defendant with private counsel who is able to settle up within three to five years, depending on the type of sanction. The findings suggest that sentencing stage adjustments in financial sanctions necessitated by a defendant’s ability to pay may not be sufficient. Furthermore, the general rise in assessment amounts over time is largely due to increased costs. Given general difficulties in debt settlement, especially among indigent defendants, enhanced reliance on costs may unintentionally affect restitution amounts received by crime victims.

Understanding the Burden of Legal Financial Obligations on Indigent Washingtonians

In criminal courts across the country, judges assess a variety of fines, fees and other legal financial obligations (LFOs) that many defendants struggle to pay. This paper provides a summary of the authors’ longer empirical article that examines the disproportionate burden that fine and fee assessment and collection practices impose on low-income, system-involved individuals, using administrative court data for criminal cases filed in Washington’s courts of limited jurisdiction between 2015 and 2020. The authors find that the majority of defendants do not or only partially pay their LFOs, but that these observations are more pronounced for indigent defendants. The authors also find that, of defendants who fully pay off their fines and fees, individuals with a public defender satisfy their debt after a greater number of days, as compared to individuals with private counsel. This is all in spite of public defender defendants generally being assessed smaller amounts in fines and fees at the outset. Additionally, the authors uncover that when defendants do pay off all of their fines and fees, they tend to do so on the day of assessment, with the likelihood of satisfying full payment generally decreasing as time goes on. These findings suggest that many people struggle with criminal justice debt, but that this problem disproportionately impacts indigent Washingtonians, subjecting them to a greater possibility of harm through the various methods of collections enforcement.

Nordic Design

Legal financial obligations serve a range of practical and ideological functions within the modern American criminal justice system. Criminal fines are punitive in nature and intended to reflect the severity of the offense as well as having a deterrent component. When assessed in conjunction with other financial penalties, including fees and restitution, the collective economic burden of these sanctions can be significant. An increasingly robust body of literature highlights the unequal impact and collateral harms of these punishments, especially those for people who fall into different socioeconomic groupings. There is a danger that the well-deserved opprobrium directed at fees and the cumulative effect of legal financial obligations will mask some benefits of properly targeted and calibrated fines. Here, we explore an opportunity for reform in the United States inspired by two Nordic sentencing policy models for fines. First, we look to Norwegian penal policy to consider expanding the use of fines as the primary sanction for a wider range of criminal offenses, especially in lieu of short terms of incarceration. We temper the impact of this change, especially for indigent defendants, by considering the implementation of a means-adjusted “day fine” system which are prevalent in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland, and other individualized adjustments as in Norway. Taken together, these policies could reduce the American over-reliance on incarceration while modifying punitive fiscal sanctions in a manner that meets the purposes of punishment and seeks to minimize the unintended harms of financial punishment.

Implementation Of Giving Legal Assistance To Defendant People Who Are Not Able In District Court Of Surabaya

Abstract 
 In writing this thesis, the author intends to find out and analyze the implementation of providing legal assistance to indigent defendants in the Surabaya district court. is an empirical juridical research that is a type of field research that studies the legal provisions that apply and what happens in reality in the community supported by interview interviews and questionnaires and legislation. Based on the legal material obtained, those in this thesis use descriptive analysis data. The results of the study concluded that in the implementation of providing legal assistance to indigent defendants in the Surabaya District Court, it was carried out through the Surabaya District Court's legal aid post consisting of a combination of several advocate organizations in it. To get free legal assistance, it is done by submitting a request to be given legal assistance through a one-stop integrated service in the Surabaya District Court, but not all requests for legal assistance are granted, there are also requests that are rejected or not granted, only those who fulfill the requirements to get assistance the law will be granted for free and in practice there are those that are in accordance with the provisions and there are those that are not in accordance with the provisions for example such as the provision of legal assistance which is not carried out to the end. giving legal aid until the executor of giving legal aid violates the rules.
 Keywords: Providing Legal Aid, Defendants who are unable, Legal Aid Posts

Understanding the Burden of Legal Financial Obligations on Indigent Washingtonians

In criminal courts across the country, judges assess a variety of fines, fees and other legal financial obligations (LFOs) that many defendants struggle to pay. This paper examines the disproportionate burden that fine and fee assessment and collection practices impose on low-income, system-involved individuals, using administrative court data for criminal cases filed in Washington’s courts of limited jurisdiction between 2015 and 2020. The authors find that the majority of defendants do not or only partially pay their LFOs, but that these observations are more pronounced for indigent defendants. The authors also find that, of defendants who fully pay off their fines and fees, individuals with a public defender satisfy their debt after a greater number of days, as compared to individuals with private counsel. This is all in spite of public defender defendants generally being assessed smaller amounts in fines and fees at the outset. Additionally, the authors uncover that when defendants do pay off all of their fines and fees, they tend to do so on the day of assessment, with the likelihood of satisfying full payment generally decreasing as time goes on. These findings suggest that many people struggle with criminal justice debt, but that this problem disproportionately impacts indigent Washingtonians, subjecting them to a greater possibility of harm through the various methods of collections enforcement.

Perceived Effectiveness of Parent Representation Social Workers by Legal Professionals Involved with Indigent Defendants

The total number of children in the U.S. foster care system exceeds 428,000. Previous research indicates that when social workers and legal professionals work together, children and their families benefit significantly. Parents who effectively engage in the child welfare system are more likely to benefit from services and reunify with their children. The present study employed a phenomenological approach to explore how a parent representation pilot, which paired social workers with public defenders to better represent the needs of families in the child welfare system, was experienced by legal professionals. Judges and family court attorneys (n = 9) found the program to be helpful in reunifying families. Public defenders were able to leverage the social worker’s skills and experience to facilitate more positive outcomes, while reducing case burden. Challenges were also identified and included a lack of interdisciplinary training, potential overlap in ethical responsibilities, and role confusion. Structured intervention programs that encourage collaboration between social workers and legal professionals may improve case outcomes for indigent families involved in the child welfare system. It is advised that social work undertake a formal multidisciplinary approach in support of public defenders, which may serve to encourage positive case outcomes.

Institutional Determinants for Representation of Indigent Defendants: Evidence from Russia

Abstract Little is known about the motives of lawyers who provide free legal assistance in countries that lack both a developed professional community and developed institutions related to the rule of law. Based on a survey of 3,317 criminal defense lawyers (advokaty) in 35 regions of Russia, we analyze the provision of two types of free legal services: participation in legal proceedings “on appointment” (po naznacheniyu) and the provision of pro bono legal assistance. We show that work on appointment usually involves lawyers with low social capital and a lack of regular clients. In contrast, pro bono legal assistance is encouraged by lawyers’ organizations. It is typically provided by professionals with a high level of social capital and with values aimed at maintaining an excellent professional reputation. We conclude that the provision of free legal services might best be stimulated within the professional community rather than by the government.

Is Your Lawyer a Lemon? Incentives and Selection in the Public Provision of Criminal Defense

Abstract Governments in the United States must offer free legal services to low-income people accused of crimes. To provide these services, many jurisdictions rely on assigned counsel systems, where private attorneys represent indigent defendants on a contract basis. These defendants are more likely to be convicted and incarcerated than defendants with privately retained attorneys. Using detailed court records, we investigate the mechanisms behind this disparity and consider their policy implications. We find that adverse selection among lawyers is not the primary contributor to the assigned counsel penalty. We conclude that reform efforts should address moral hazard in assigned counsel systems.

Making Gideon Count? Public Defender Resources and Felony Case Outcomes for Black, White, and Latinx Individuals

Although Gideon v. Wainright has provided indigent defendants potentially facing prison time the right to counsel, commentators and scholars have documented that the public defense system is vastly underfunded and currently in crisis. However, research has rarely examined how public defender resources impact case outcomes, and the research that does exist has yet, to my knowledge, examine how these resources impact racial disparities in case outcomes. By merging data from the Census of Public Defender Offices to data from the State Court Processing Statistics, I begin to fill this gap. Results from multivariate regression analyses with state-year fixed effects provide mixed evidence. Regardless of race, higher public defender and support staff caseloads tend to be associated with worse case outcomes. In the case of pretrial detention, I find that high public defender and support staff caseloads exacerbate Black-White disparities. With respect to sentence length, I find evidence that high public defender caseloads exacerbate Latinx-White disparities and some evidence that they mitigate Black-White disparities. In sum, these results provide strong support for the view that the public defender funding crisis harms indigent defendants regardless of race and mixed evidence regarding its impact on racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

The Stress of Injustice: Public Defenders and the Frontline of American Inequality

The Stress of Injustice: Public Defenders and the Frontline of American Inequalityby Baćak, Valerio, Lageson, Sarah, and Powell, KathleenHide DescriptionPublished on Dec 12, 2020papers.ssrn.comDescriptionFairness and due process in the criminal justice system are all but unattainable without effective legal representation of indigent defendants, yet we know little about attorneys who do this critical work—public defenders. Using semi-structured interviews, this study investigated occupational stress in a sample of 87 public defenders across the United States. We show how the intense and varied chronic stressors experienced at work originate in what we define as the stress of injustice: the social and psychological demands of working in a punitive system with laws and practices that target and punish those who are the most disadvantaged. Our findings are centered around three shifts in American criminal justice that manifest in the stress of injustice: penal excess, divestment in indigent defense, and the criminalization of mental illness. Working within these structural constraints makes public defenders highly vulnerable to chronic stress and can have profound implications for their ability to safeguard the rights of poor defendants.

The Stress of Injustice: Public Defenders and the Frontline of American Inequality

Fairness and due process in the criminal justice system are all but unattainable without effective legal representation of indigent defendants, yet we know little about attorneys who do this critical work—public defenders. Using semi-structured interviews, this study investigated occupational stress in a sample of 87 public defenders across the United States. We show how the intense and varied chronic stressors experienced at work originate in what we define as the stress of injustice: the social and psychological demands of working in a punitive system with laws and practices that target and punish those who are the most disadvantaged. Our findings are centered around three shifts in American criminal justice that manifest in the stress of injustice: penal excess, divestment in indigent defense, and the criminalization of mental illness. Working within these structural constraints makes public defenders highly vulnerable to chronic stress and can have profound implications for their ability to safeguard the rights of poor defendants.

The Price of Poverty: Policy Implications of the Unequal Effects of Monetary Sanctions on the Poor.

Over the last several decades, with the rise of mass incarceration in the United States and its steep costs, governments at the federal, state, and local levels have dramatically ramped up monetary punishment. Monetary sanctions are now the most common type of criminal penalty in the United States. The growth of fines, fees, and other legal financial obligations (LFOs), and the ensuing legal debt, reflect a shifting of the system's costs onto its primarily low-income and indigent subjects. This study provides an exploration of previously underexamined ways in which monetary sanctions impose distinct burdens on the poor. Interviews with 121 defendants in Texas and New York, along with courtroom observations, demonstrate that criminal legal debt is particularly challenging for people with low incomes in three meaningful ways. First, systems set up to handle indigency claims do not adequately address the needs or complex individual circumstances of those who simply do not have the ability to pay. Oftentimes, alternatives are unavailable or statutorily prohibited. Second, the lack of alternatives to payment lead to compromising situations, which then compel indigent defendants to make difficult choices about how to allocate scant resources. Finally, being encumbered with fines and fees and participating in alternatives like community service comes with taxing time requirements that can prove uniquely challenging for those who are poor. These three findings lead us to propose a series of policy recommendations revolving around three key themes: (a) enhancement of indigency procedures, (b) equity in monetary sanctions, and (c) alleviating burdens by improving accessibility.

Remote Criminal Justice

The coronavirus pandemic has forced courts to innovate to provide criminal justice while protecting public health. Many have turned to online platforms in order to conduct criminal proceedings without undue delay. The convenience of remote proceedings has led some to advocate for their expanded use after the pandemic is over. To assess the promise and peril of online criminal justice, I surveyed state and federal judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys across Texas, where virtual proceedings have been employed for a range of criminal proceedings, starting in March 2020. The survey responses were supplemented with direct observations of remote plea hearings and the first criminal jury trial conducted via Zoom. The survey responses paint a complicated picture. They suggest that, on the whole, online proceedings can save time and resources for the participants in criminal cases and can provide broader access to the courts for the public. Yet respondents also noted the dangers of remote justice, particularly in contested or evidentiary hearings and trials. These include the inability of the parties to present evidence and confront witnesses effectively, and the challenges of providing adequate legal assistance remotely. Respondents also expressed concern that the court’s perception of defendants may be negatively skewed by technology and that indigent defendants might be disproportionately harmed by the use of remote hearings. Defense attorneys were especially likely to be concerned about the use of the online format and to believe that it tends to harm their clients. Federal judges and prosecutors were also more likely than their state counterparts to be skeptical of the benefits of online criminal proceedings outside the context of the pandemic. Based on the survey responses, an analysis of scholarship and case law, and first-hand observations of virtual criminal proceedings, the Article concludes with several recommendations about the future use of online criminal justice. It argues that states should be wary of expanding the use of remote proceedings after the pandemic is over. Online technology could be used more broadly to conduct status hearings and hearings on questions of law and to increase the frequency of attorney-client consultations. Beyond these narrow circumstances, however, remote hearings post-pandemic should be used only sparingly, as they carry too many risks to the fairness of the proceedings. If jurisdictions make the choice to use virtual proceedings in circumstances beyond status hearings and legal arguments, this should be done only after obtaining an informed and voluntary consent from the defendant, and with great care taken to reduce the risks of unfairness and unreliable results.